The more I think about the way women approach the question of sexual morality and women’s sexual history, the more I’m convinced that women strongly tend to boil all of this down into two categories:
- Good girls.
- Sluts.
So long as they can convince themselves they are in category #1 they are happy. If she can say to herself and others I’m a good girl, thats all that matters. Well, not quite. She also wants to know the specific definition of sluts, so she can say:
I’m a good girl, unlike those sluts.
I don’t mean this in a derogatory way. This is natural, and the underlying impulse is an extremely beneficial one. When this powerful desire is harnessed correctly it prevents the kinds of disasters we are currently witnessing. I certainly wouldn’t advise marrying a woman who lacked this impulse, although keep in mind that this is the stuff rationalization hamster epics are made of.
Feminists have worked for decades to eradicate the concept of slut, yet it still has immense power. You can change language, but you can’t change the underlying reality. On top of that, women will always want to know the definition of the terms so they can place (or rationalize) themselves in the former category and at least some other women in the latter. I think you can see the truth of this in how much more successful feminists have been in convincing ordinary men to abandon the word slut (for the time being at least) than ordinary women.
I’m not old enough to have been around for the beginning of the sexual revolution, but my sense is it played out as follows. Feminists and others wanted to change the culture and used their considerable influence in academia and the media convincing people (especially young people) that sex outside of marriage wasn’t immoral. This along with the newly available birth control pill left women with a problem: How to enjoy this new found freedom while still remaining in the good girl category? This was uncharted territory; they knew there was danger in the seductive call to let down their inhibitions, but they didn’t know exactly where that danger was hidden. This left them hesitant to get too far off the beaten path, even though they wanted to explore.
I came of age some time after the original sexual revolution, but some of the actions I observed of women when in college give me a hint on what came before. I noticed quite a few college age women mentioning that they lost their virginity to their College Boyfriend. They didn’t give it up at some drunken frat party, nor did they give it up for a guy in high school, unlike those sluts who did. There was something very special to these young women about the idea of losing their virginity to their College Boyfriend. It was almost mystical. I was very bewildered by it at the time. These weren’t necessarily special relationships to these women, although the guy they chose for the honor could be forgiven for misunderstanding. The guys they chose were all clean cut nice guys. This was essential I think, otherwise it didn’t fit the ritual. Shortly after their virginity was lost (maybe at the end of the semester or year), so too tended to be the College Boyfriend. Having anchored themselves firmly in the good girl camp, they were now free to chase the alphas they craved and join the drunken frat parties. Not all of these women went to this extreme after losing their virginity, and many other women had lost their virginity prior to college but still considered themselves good girls, but the basic ritual was surprisingly common.
I think the mystical value of the College Boyfriend came from the way these young women heard “good girls” from previous generations talk about their own sexual history. Sure they had sex before marriage, but they weren’t sluts. They were good girls, they only had sex with their College Boyfriend and later married after maybe an LTR or two. This may or may not have been the whole truth, but I’m guessing it was the message many of my female peers received.
My guess is this has all continued to shift and young women are looking for another seemingly hard and fast marker to ensure that they aren’t straying too far from the safety of the ever widening good girl path. One thing my wife heard from a divorcée who is a bit younger than us is that she always stays with a man she has had sex with for at least six months (unlike those sluts who don’t). She really believes this, and has avoided breaking up with (and continued having sex with) several men she was tired of until they crossed the magic 6 month mark. We see the same thing with those who now earnestly proclaim that good girls only have sex within the confines of serial monogamy. This is closely related to the large number of women who feel that marrying before having children and then divorcing the father puts them on a different moral plane than those trashy unwed mothers.
In the end for all of the hue and cry about how unfair and arbitrary it was to draw the line at having sex with only one man barring his death or gross violation of the marriage vows (once and done marriage) the great irony is that women are now left having to create their own arbitrary markers instead. These have a seeming immovability to them and therefore provide comfort, even though across generations they are quite malleable and have no true moral value. This very malleability though could leave a large number of women who thought they were in the “good girl” category at risk of reassignment should the pendulum swing in the other direction.
Feminists and their allies have been able to drive changes to the cultural definition of “good girl” largely unchallenged for around 40 years now. However there are signs that men, especially younger men with an understanding of game, may start to push this back in the other direction. These men have this power because they are the ones who can decide which women are worthy of marriage or even an exclusive LTR. Men only lost the power to define this because they were tricked into believing they didn’t have it. Whether this will happen in our lifetime is an open question, but it strikes me that many women are taking a risk based on a set of very changeable rules which they have assumed to be permanent.
If and when the pendulum swings back, my guess is that older men and women are likely to find a way to “grandfather” in previously assessed good girls of the older generations, and younger women will see the changing rules and adjust accordingly. However, it also seems likely that women in their 20s and early 30s when the social mood shifts could end up being retroactively judged by a more stringent standard.
Minefield photo by Christopher Michel.
I think women prefer to complain how unfair it is that more sexual partners makes them less desirable, rather than accept the fact and stop being such whores. The problem is that it doesn’t change a thing, and their being less desirable is only one consequence among many for the promiscuous woman.
I was born in the late 50’s. I was raised in a Christian home and definitely wanted to wait until marriage. However, all of my “christian” friends, even in high school slept with their boyfriends. A slut back then was a girl who slept with a different guy every weekend. Sleeping with just a boyfriend seemed to be okay with the majority of “christian” girls.
I disagree that the sexual revolution came about in a top-down, directed fashion, from academia outward. The left popularized anti-capitalism that way, but it took them generations: They first had to seize control of academia, then start miseducating young people, then wait for those young people to dominate primary education, secondary education, and the media. It’s only in the last ten years that they’ve turned mass parasitism into “plain old common sense” for a majority of the population, and they’ve been working on that project since the 60s, at least.
The sexual revolution was fast, roughly 1960 to 1970. I don’t know exactly what did drive the 60s, but I can’t see how it could have been top down. The infrastructure would’ve had to have been in place in the schools and the media in the 50s, and it simply wasn’t.
Maybe it was the depression/WWII generation making everything far too easy for their kids. I really don’t know.
Samuel,
There’s safety in numbers. If they’re essentially all doing it,
a) There’s no relative disadvantage to doing it.
b) The exceptions will tend to be girls who’d be misfits anyway, and so unattractive for other reasons.
c) Young men just accept it as the way things are and give it no thought.
d) The best ones tend to get snapped up earlier and tend to stay snapped up permanently — by definition. So they’re much more likely to be out of the competition.
I notice a tendency amongst virginal women to play very hard to get – as they have something valuable to protect – but then, after losing their virginity and thus having nothing to protect further, tend, on occasions, to go from modest to heavy-slutting overnight, as it were. This I quite understand, but, much as guys like to score, they also instinctively keep their distance from loose women. The inverse rule must be, that: The easier the woman, the less interested the man. No guy wants to admit to his buddies that he scored with ‘her’ – as he will only be laughed at. I recall telling one of my ex-es (who consistently tried to make me jealous) and in a rare and regrettable loss of self-control on my part, that she was a slut. She burst into tears.
I wish I knew what happened to that woman I briefly dated – in her late twenties – who had at some point in her late teens been a Xtian Missionary (amongst the Scots) – a virgin then – and who kept up the pretence of Virginality with her family, but who confessed to me that in the two years before we met she had slept with 300 guys; indeed on the day we met she told me that she had just returned from three weeks in Florida where she said she had been terribly good as she had only slept with five men (I obviously made no.6). It could not bode well.
The “college boyfriend” phenomenon certainly explains a lot.
1. Once the young woman has lost her virginity to College BF, the liaison deteriorates and ends rapidly. She’s done with him in a few months. He’s a “nice guy”. “Nice girls” have their first “beautiful experience” with “nice guys”. Only sluts give it up FIRST to bad boys.
2. She waits until college to give up her virginity. She is almost always 18 or very close to it, and thus is a legal adult and “I can do what I want now and no one can stop me.” She can now get a prescription for birth control and arrange other medical services for herself. As long as she has money to pay for it, she need not tell her parents. Her having reached the age of majority gives an air of legitimacy to her conduct.
3. She has usually gone away to college and lives in a dorm. The logistics of getting alone in a dorm room, a frat house room or an apartment are usually easy to work out. She no longer has to sneak around. She does not have to sneak the BF into her bedroom when the parents are out for the night. She need not bribe little brothers to keep their mouths shut. A “nice girl” feels slutty and dirty and illicit if she has to sneak around to have her first experience. If it’s (mostly) above board, it’s OK.
4. To a young woman, losing her virginity is a Disney Princess Moment (so to speak). She wants it to be a Beautiful Experience, one she will treasure forever. It has to be by candelight, not a dashboard light. It has to be with a Prince Charming, not a trashy bad boy. It has to be Perfect, not rushed, and be as drawn out (or as brief) as she wants it to be. After all, only sluts give it up for the first time in the back seat of a car, with legs sticking to the leather. Only a slut gives up her virginity to a Bad Boy rock band drummer or the slobbering drunk college sophomore fratboy. Only a slut remembers her first experience as a two-minute pump & dump.
The church passes out the personal Jesus figurines that help with all this
I met a virgin in college. We had sex (not my 1st) and I ultimately married her after college.
2 years later I came home early from a biz trip and she was sleeping with the drive time DJ from the radio station where she worked.
Every woman except herself is a slut.
sorry for too many posts.
A good picture to post is the one you see on mexican mountain roads saying “Curvas Peligrosas”
I love that sign “dangerous curves”, because in eastern Europe, namely Romania (where I heard it) but I think in other countries too “Curva” means hooker. Dangerous Hookers ahead….sage warning!
I knew a girl in college, had the classic “College Boyfriend”. I was into her, but she was taken, and I liked her BF enough, so we stayed friends (her group and ours ran together, so we spent a lot of time with each other).
Needless to say, once CB was gone, she immediately (and drunkenly) tried to jump my bones. I turned her down (I was stone sober and wasn’t about to let things get out of hand) and saw her back to her room.
The next day, she gave me the ol’ “I would marry you, but I just want to have fun and be wild right now.” She had her CB, so now she was free for a few trips around the carousel. Needless to say, that friendship didn’t last a week.
“fun” is literally the word women have replaced slut with in the modern age to describe themselves,.
“All women except me are sluts, I’m just having fun!”
becomes
“All women except me are sluts, I’m just slutting around!”
A woman who has slept with M men thinks that being a slut means to sleep with S men, where S = M+3.
When this same woman sleeps with more men (M increases), there’s no problem: S gets redefined. This way M is always inside the “good girl” category.
At any given time, S = M + 3.
“Kurva” is “whore” in a wide variety of languages — Polish, Hungarian, Serbian, Albanian, Russian, Romanian, probably many more.
This theme fits into a previous discussion on Dalrock on what constitutes a “good person”…as in , sure I’m a tattooed pole dancer and dispense $10 BJ’s, BUT…” I’m a good person”.
I know a gal who thinks a good girl is someone who only sleeps with one guy per day…to bang two guys in a single day…well that is over the top trampiness, hahaha.
Another “good person” I know of (self described) has a rap sheet,gang membership, 2 bastards, 2 failed marriages, 2 failed shack ups, has slept with untold numbers of men and is currently a cougar with a douche-bag 1/2 her age ( oh, and she evicted her 20yo daughter, out of fear daughter would steal her new sperm donor of daughters age)…BUT…she only brings unwanted pets to no-kill animal shelters…Mother Teresa move over!
A notorious cockgobbler I know recently had a child and someone asked who’s the father?
This gal is married (poor hubby) and was DEEPLY OFFENDED at this question. But she has had countless affairs and is well known for her fellatio skills. I guess the new-mom thing makes her a born-again virgin…hahahaha.
Recently a relative who is a drunk with several DUI convictions, got his driver’s license reinstated after 10 years. He is a good guy who is truly sorry for his crappy past, is now a teetotaler and volunteers at his church.
He applied to drive the church bus to youth events. The church elders said no thanks…he was deeply offended. “I paid my price to the courts, who are they to judge me”…ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!!
I told him, you would NEVER drive my kid anywhere…HELL NO!
Choose to sin, choose to suffer…sorry, your past will haunt you.
Our society and the self-esteem movement has deluded an army of people, especially women, to think they can do anything and just get a pass. Shame on our society for allowing this to go on.
Here’s an idea, think about what you intend to do and know that actions have consequences…DUH!
“… this is the stuff rationalization hamster epics are made of.”
True story: I have a friend who’s been married for almost ten years to her fifth husband. He’s a strong, mature, moral man, and she knows she’s lucky to have him. Before she met him she spent twenty years married to, and divorced from, four different men who were alcoholics, drug addicts, sociopaths and violent abusers. Beth married most of the men she slept with so she wasn’t a slut. She was a classic drama queen though, always looking for Mr. Right while embroiled in juvenile, spiteful conflicts with her “terrible” exes.
I was close to her when she met #5 and fell under the influence of his guidance and his endless patience. The transformation in her was truly amazing. She allowed this man to lead her. She followed his financial advice and cut up her credit cards. She accepted his advice in disciplining her children. She even let him intervene in, and take control of, an ongoing conflict with the father of two of her children, which may well have saved her son’s future. (Time will tell.) She finally grew up and fulfilled her potential.
She was never a “bad person” although she did have a couple of LTRs that “didn’t work out,” between her marriages. She’s generous and loving, and devoted to her children and her parents. Heck, the same preacher counseled her through all four divorces. She is very happy now and she likes her peaceful life, but she still rationalizes her past behavior. She honestly believes that her actions were justified, that she was lashing out in “necessary” self defense against attacks from her exes. She once said to me, “I know God has a plan. I know there must be a reason why so many bad things happen in my life.”
It has never once occurred to her that most of the awful circumstances in her life were the direct result of HER OWN STUPID CHOICES – they didn’t just “happen.”
But in her mind, it wasn’t her fault. She believes that God must have some REALLY SPECIAL plans for her, because of the way He tested her. She does not repent her past behavior; she regrets the necessity for that behavior. Her ego is completely safe: not only is she blameless for her “past,” but she’s important enough to God for him to be so very visible in her life. Beth is an extreme (but not uncommon) example of the rationalization behind serial monogamy. She was a lot of things, but she was NEVER a slut. She’s one of those “good girls.” Beth wins!
@ Matthew Walker:
“I disagree that the sexual revolution came about in a top-down, directed fashion, from academia outward.”
Interesting point. This is my problem with “conspiracy theories.” Who needs conspirators when the world is full of opportunists who will make the most of every circumstance, often en masse? These changes didn’t need to come from the top down; they spread rapidly throughout a rather pampered population that was on the lookout for opportunities to get what it wanted without paying the price. The smartest among them gravitated towards positions of power, and that’s how it all became institutionalized. It may not have started as a conspiracy, but it evolved into one.
Suz,
Your comments have been gold lately, but this one sentence deserves some sort of award:
You’ve just summed up the entire problem with how we view sexual morality both in the church and the larger culture. This other sentence sums up the meaning of my avatar/banner image:
As for conspiracy theories, the strange thing is the Stalinist were quite open about what they were up to back in the 20s and 30s if you look at their own writings. They deliberately set out to take over academia and the media in the west. This is a bit like arguing that Hitler never had a plan to expand Germany; he wrote it in his book, then he did it years later. One book I highly recommend is Whittaker Chambers’ Witness. He goes into detail how communists were coordinating their infiltration into positions of influence. He was smeared by the establishment but much of what he wrote was corroborated decades later by the release Venona decrypts. The conspiracy was real, but your point that the audience was willing is still correct.
If graduate school ever becomes the norm for education, watch the “college boyfriend” become the “grad-school boyfriend”…and those women who gave it up before the GSB would become the new sluts.
Really, it’s just the goalposts that move. Before the CB, there was the high school sweetheart, those girls that had sex before meeting their high school sweethearts were sluts back in the day..
@deti
“She has usually gone away to college and lives in a dorm. The logistics of getting alone in a dorm room, a frat house room or an apartment are usually easy to work out. She no longer has to sneak around. She does not have to sneak the BF into her bedroom when the parents are out for the night. She need not bribe little brothers to keep their mouths shut. A “nice girl” feels slutty and dirty and illicit if she has to sneak around to have her first experience. If it’s (mostly) above board, it’s OK.”
Indeed. But I’d also add that even teenage girls have access to more privacy and discretion than before. There are student exchange programs between high schools, field trips, scholarships etc. These girls have the opportunity to travel in small groups or even alone. And as soon as they’re abroad or merely away from town, out of the sight of their parents and the beta guys that surround them at home, they find alphas to f*ck because that’s what they yearn for. It’s no wonder sluts prefer to travel alone or in pairs.
“To a young woman, losing her virginity is a Disney Princess Moment (so to speak). She wants it to be a Beautiful Experience, one she will treasure forever. It has to be by candelight, not a dashboard light. It has to be with a Prince Charming, not a trashy bad boy. It has to be Perfect, not rushed, and be as drawn out (or as brief) as she wants it to be.”
This strikes me as yet another example of the BS that young women spread about themselves among clueless betas. I suspect the claims about “college boyfriends” fall into the same category. Even the “slut – good girl” dichotomy is a creation of the patriarchy. I doubt most women actually believe in it. Women are generally amoral. They just reinforce this dichotomy in public in order to come across in a better light. They instinctively know that men generally view sluts as worthy of nothing more than P&D.
The reality is that pretty much all young women yearn to have sex with alphas and will do so when the opportunity arises. The wish for candlelight etc. is just BS they tell to betas. They want betas to believe that women actually view these as important. The fact is that young women want to have sex with alphas, with or without candlelight and all that.
Much has been written in the so-called PUAsphere/Gamesphere about the SMP being a “secret world” to average men. Women and alpha males know the reality of the SMP and female sexuality and they basically conspire to keep the hordes of beta men in the dark about it. I think this behavior is more subconscious than conscious on the part of women.
Suz says:
January 6, 2012 at 9:48 am
The past was not filled with only virtuous people. My father described his boot camp experience in 1944 as being only 1 of 2 men in what the others called “the virgin club”. Not that some men weren’t lying about themselves and also some of the men were married.
How many women it took for the other men to get laid might be the major difference, but the women weren’t all virtuous back then either.
BBTP
I thought so, I go there a lot, will be in Poland, Czech and Slovakia later next week and the week after, but since I aint lookin for Kurvas I don’t really check such things. Estan siempre peligrosa todo el mundo!
EW
Was the HS quarterback considered a virtuous virginity taker….or not
A notorious cockgobbler I know recently had a child and someone asked who’s the father?
This gal is married (poor hubby) and was DEEPLY OFFENDED at this question.
An acquaintance of mine told me all about how she’d been screwing a cop (he’d come to her apartment for something or other and she got his cell number out of him) behind her fiancé’s back. A few weeks later she’s pregnant (she already has a child from a previous relationship), after having been trying with the fiancé for the last year and having had a miscarriage about a year previously. When she announced to a small group of women that she was pregnant, I said, “Do you know who the father is?” She didn’t look amused!
She carried on with the cop under her fiancé’s nose, passing him off as some long lost uncle (he’s twice her age) and taking her daughter along to see him. She complained about her fiancé’s checking up on her – gee, why do you suppose he would do that? That controlling asshole!
In my opinion, the divide between “slut” and “good girl” matters because of the way women form hierarchies (insert screeching from various feminists here). Remember that at the basic, basic level – the “lizard brain” level* – women want two things from men: sperm, and resources to care for babies. Thus there is competition between women for desirable men, and many things flow from this, such as hypergamy, social proofing, and so forth. One way to cast another woman out of the competition is to brand her in men’s eyes as untrustworthy. Since human females have a hidden estrus vs. a visible one, cuckolding is always a factor in male-female relations. Somewhere deep in the male brain, possibly down at the “lizard” level even, is a revulsion at providing resources for some other man’s child. Thus, to brand a woman as “slut” reduces her value to the desirable men.
This explains why the concept of “slut” does not go away, because it is inherently part of the human reproductive strategies. This also explains why the feminists want it to go away, because it is not “fair” that some women should be preferred by men more than other women (leaving aside the lesbian separatists, and gendercide radfems, of course, who just want men to “go away”). It also is a fact that directly contradicts the notion that “women are just men who can have babies”, a fundamental premise of feminism.
Women’s hierarchies go far beyond the slut/goodgurl divide, of course, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion. The point is simple, yet deep:
“Sluts” do not get the desired man for the longer term. Therefore, women will do anything to avoid being branded as a “slut”. Rationalization is how humans deal with many unpleasant aspects of reality. It should be no surprise that women rationalize their sexual behavior in such a way as to self-label as “good girl” rather than “slut”. Even if that rationalization looks totally absurd to an outside, male, observer, it does not matter because it isn’t for him.
* It is generally accepted that the human brain contains elements of older forms of life, one text I read years ago referred to a “lizard brain” that conducted basic life/death business including reproduction, a “horse brain” or “primate brain” that took care of more advanced issues and finally the human icing on the cake in the frontal lobes. Those who do not accept the concept of evolution are certainly welcome to any model they prefer, but I ain’t gonna debate them on this.
That is disgusting CL and in a fair world she would have been stoned to death. Yes I am serious.
By the way, I’m not trying to say or imply that women are robots, or animals, that they cannot control their urges. I’m rather trying to show that there are deep, deep reasons why “slut” is a word that is hugely upsetting to women.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082970/Divorced-parents-risk-jail-stop-ex-partner-seeing-children-new-law.html
Won’t be enforced. Ever.
Also from the comments:
I sense a huge rise in abusive fathers coming on. Once the ex wife makes this accusation it’ doesn’t have to be substantiated, she’s believed without question & can basically do as she pleases. I don’t doubt there are some abusive spouses out there but no one can disagree that this is a vindictive ex wife’s trump card & is played very very often for no reason other than spite.
– Cabbage, Sheffield, 06/1/2012 16:32
@ Empath,
“Was the HS quarterback considered a virtuous virginity taker….or not”
I suppose it depends upon whom you ask. I would say no…at least the virtuous part. What would you say?
But this post is about female promiscuity and dating behavior, not that of the male, which has its own dynamic and subject to its own double-standards.
Anybody here fans of the show M*A*S*H? The discussion here reminds me of something…
Well-known man-candy Margaret “Hot-Lips” Houlihan and Hawkeye Pierce just shared a romp in the hay, Margaret being married to another man, Donald Penobscot.
Margaret: “My God, I can believe we did that. What’ll I tell Donald?”
Hawkeye: “Well… what do you usually tell him?”
Margaret: “HOW DARE YOU!”
Just as an aside on the quarterback conversation but when I played secondary in high school the QB was the biggest beta mangina on the team.
Pingback: “The same preacher counseled her through all four divorces” « Patriactionary
MY QB comment was for some humor, but more to maybe find an example of an excuse that can give a woman openly a foot in both worlds that she can, even in just her mind, bounce between.
She can feel the tingle about the QB…the slut tingle from bedding the alpha, AND/OR she can say she had a wonderful experience with her HS sweetheart.
Thats all.
Hollenhund:
On the girl sneaking: I think you’re right. I also note that moms work more frequently. In many households, Dad has not lived there in years. So she probably does have a lot of “home alone”. I was relating my experience growing up small town in the late 1970s and early to mid 80s, where the dads and moms were still married to each other, lived together and seemed to kind of like each other; and where most of the moms either didn’t work or worked as teachers or part time around their kids’ schedules, and the dads worked.
Maybe you’re right that the Disney Princess “first time” is purely a fictional construct to keep betas in the dark. But it seems to explain the “I’m not a slut” paradigm. She gave it up to a nice guy. Having gotten that out of the way and secured herself as a “good girl”, she can now bang all the alphas she wants.
@BBTP
Add Czech and Slovak for “kurva” to your list. There are some more “interesting” words. For example “Kunde” (customer in German) is very close to “kunda” which means cunt. We could carry on this way for hours :).
@Dalrock
To alter the process you would need some external force – like religion* with strict norms and heavy punishment for disobedience. This is something (especially) women and desirable men will not accept voluntarily.
* In theory, harsh envirnomental conditions could be enough to bring ecologically-imposed monogamy. But this is not going to happen in milder to tropical climates and in developed (or even emerging) countries.
@ Opus:
“I recall telling one of my ex-es (who consistently tried to make me jealous) and in a rare and regrettable loss of self-control on my part, that she was a slut. She burst into tears.”
Secondary to AR’s point on the anti-slut defense and women’s aversion to slutdom. Calling a woman a slut is still considered to be one of the most cutting, biting insults one can direct at a woman. Using the word today in polite company brings immediate recrimination and cries of “Sexist!”
Wow this fits my experience to a T. Except in my case, it was the “High School Boyfriend.” Around junior year, a lot of the girls in my grade were starting to have sex, with their boyfriends of course. Not wanting to feel left out, I started something up with a guy that I wasn’t really attracted to, but that I knew would commit to me so I could lose my virginity and still be a good girl. In fairness though, I don’t think the rest of my girlfriends chose their boyfriends in this way, they all seemed to genuinely be “in love” their guys. I think my complete lack of self-regard stemmed from growing up in a broken home, a problem my girlfriends didn’t have. I still feel awful about the way I treated my boyfriend though; he really loved me and wanted to stay together when he went off to school. I wanted to break up and hook up with alphas because that’s what I thought I was supposed to do from watching shows like Sex and the City. Even my girlfriends who did really love their first boyfriends did this once their relationships inevitably ended. It took a couple of years of repeatedly banging my head against the wall to finally figure out that what I was doing was a) not going to get me a boyfriend and b) making me completely miserable, hence my introduction to the manosphere. I don’t think any of my other girlfriends were ever quite as miserable as I was; they always seemed to have a confidence I didn’t have, even when having lots of casual sex. They all are in stable relationships now too, and I still haven’t had a boyfriend since that one in high school (we’re 24-25 now) and all living in big coastal cities (we grew up in “flyover country”). One of them has cheated on her stable boyfriend repeatedly, but as far as I know the others are good to theirs. I definitely envy them though, as I don’t think the years of hooking up affected them in quite the same way it did me. Who knows though, maybe the fact that I was forced to take the “red pill” early on will benefit me later in life. Let’s hope so.
[D: Welcome to the blog lalady.]
>>>>God has a plan. I know there must be a reason why so many bad things happen in my life.
Indeed. I’ve long thought that his plan is to punish the stupid, to cull the heard and strengthen the breed, and that much of what we do in Western society to protect people from themselves is probably contrary to God’s plan. He gave us the laws of physics people, as various other little cause & effect rules that govern life, a chaotic universe not being much a place if you’re trying to allow some room for living creatures. But the rules operate independently, you have the power to rely on them to do things. If you throw a bowling ball into the air, and it lands on your head killing you, it’s not because God hated you, it’s because you were throwing bowling balls into the air.
That a woman who has been marrief 5 times can ask why things are going wrong in her life with a straight face amazes me, and it’s strong testimony to the near-superhuman strength of The Hamster.
the genie is out of the bottle, with the Pill, et al. No point in worrying about whether a woman is a slut or not based on semantics. If you ain’t the first, then who cares. The best solution to the modern sexually liberated woman is father custody for those that divorce. Otherwise, there’s no point in over-investing in a woman, who can kick a man to the curb at any time, while maintaining all the assets of the marriage, naming the children, savings, and cash flow. Fathers can raise their own children without any child support and child support enforcement from government jack boots.
What are the “new rules” that you envision coming along? That a woman who has sex with >1 man in her lifetime is a slut?
@LJ
Each man will continue to be free to make his own judgment on that question, as they always have been. What I see (possibly) changing is men becoming more aware of the risks and exercising the judgment feminists have convinced so many men of my generation they have no right to exercise. This judgment will be exercised when deciding if a woman is worth the risk of marriage, or even if she is worth the emotional investment of a LTR. All of the feminist shame in the world can’t stop them from acting in this way to protect their own interests if they choose to do so. If enough individual men start using a more strict standard, the cultural norms will change accordingly.
As to what the standard will actually be, you will need to ask young men in a position to marry and/or enter into a LTR. I would suggest asking the most attractive men, the ones with game.
Those aren’t the new rules, they are the well known rules made new by sluts like lalady and her friends.
“Fathers can raise their own children without any child support and child support enforcement from government jack boots.”
I have been doing this for over seven years now. The biggest threat to my children is not, in fact, their mother, but government jack boots.
I see… so it will still be up to the individual, just as it is now. I wonder, though… if a lot of men start applying a more strict standard for partner count when selecting a woman for a LTR or marriage, at a time when average partner count is not going down, won’t they be restricting their pool of women quite a bit?
Certainly if your standard is, if you’re unmarried and not a virgin, you’re a slut and I won’t date or marry you… then you have a very small pool of women.
Thus, no rings for sluts.
@LJ
Consider the alternative. If they marry a woman who can’t be trusted they will pay a very heavy price. On the casual sex side, if they invest emotionally in the wrong woman they are taking risks there as well. What you appear to be assuming is that men have no options; women can do whatever they like so long as other women are doing the same. Take it or leave it men! with the assumption that men have no choice but to take it. This may well be what men do in the end.
But take it or leave it has a risk. The man may decide to leave it. Or, he may choose a woman who is younger and/or less experienced. Or he might decide to look overseas for a wife. If the current crop of 20 something women are too slutty, a man in his 20s may even decide to wait 5-10 years to see if a less slutty crop of new 20 something women replaces them.
Whatever happens not all men will make the same choices. Any change will occur on the margins, where it always does.
Certainly they could do any of the things you’ve suggested. But all of those options to me sound like a lot more effort than dating a woman with a few prior partners.
I guess I’m trying to figure out how to take what you’re saying and use it to advise a young woman who hopes to get married someday. If you tell her, “don’t have sex until you’re married,” I’d think that she’d be disqualifying herself from a lot of good guys who would make good husbands, but who don’t want to wait for marriage.
Or it could be a regional differences thing. I’m on the East Coast… and what I see is that most men would NOT prefer a woman waiting for marriage, because then they’d have to marry her because they got to have sex with her, and they don’t want to do that.
*marry her before they got to have sex with her
“Certainly they could do any of the things you’ve suggested. But all of those options to me sound like a lot more effort than dating a woman with a few prior partners. ”
Well I can tell you that the only effort I advise men to put into women in this day and age is whatever gets a woman back to their house as quickly as possible. Dalrock might disagree but a large cohort of his readers, including myself, feel that women are useful for one thing only, and it is far easier for me to get that thing out of them, than for them to get any emotional investment out of me. Quite frankly a woman who is older than 23 is likely past her prime for me, and not worth investing in besides for sex, and shockingly they still get mad when I tell them as such after a brief fling. Many of the best ‘marriage material’ men are discovering the same.
@ybm, that’s great if that works for you, but you’re right, I think Dalrock was speaking to men who want to get married.
Or, what I can see is that there will be a jump in age with the pairings. Even if women continue to be sluts, and its “assumed” that men will marry these women rather than leave it, what I envision is that >30 men will get with 20 somthings sluts. For example, lets say that every 5 years equals a “generation” and the first crop is Gen A.
Gen A men and women are in their early to mid 30s. Gen B men and women are in their mid to late 20s. Gen C men and women are in their early to mid 20s, ect…
A viable option that I see taking place is that Gen A guys marry Gen B girls. Gen B guys marry Gen C girls. While this is happening, Gen A and Gen B women are getting left in the cold/behind/abandoned. Gen C girls start seeing some of the consequences and they start to be less slutty. This patterns holds so that Gen D girls are less slutty and this progresses to the point where latter down the road, Gen E,F,G….X start to normalize in that future Generation men and women are pairing with each other instead of going down a Gen (for guys) or being left in the cold (for girls).
I have said often in these forums that men should only marry virgins. This enrages some men and infuriates many women, even otherwise sympathetic women. As I have also said, the greatest achievement of modern feminism has been to deprive men of a virgin bride. Most men are demoralised by this, as you would expect. But it is great for women and a few men who get to fuck other men’s future wives with impunity.
To flip the script, or give another perspective, I’ll talk about myself at that age (which was a mere 15-20 years ago (ages 15-20).
I remember being in a catholic high school and early university time (large state school), wherein I was continually teased by girls for “being a virgin” and being told by boys and girls alike that “how would I know the sex was good if I hadn’t had sex with a lot of people?” And, i had most people telling me that virgins were “undesirable” and that I must be “frigid” or “abnormal” or somehow not right.
For many people, the idea that I’ve been with only one man is met with. . . quite honestly. . . shock. Women my age and older are stunned and I’m typically treated as if it is *wrong/bad* for me to have only been with one man. Or to have ever had this desire to begin with (as a teen).
Other than my husband and father, I haven’t met a man who has cared, and in fact most of them have told me that they see it as a detriment.
This is also part of my “fear” around “should anything happen to my husband.” Say I meet a 45 yr old man, once i’m through the grief, who doesn’t want children and wants a marriage and is willing to raise my son, and this man is *shocked* that i’ve only been with one man and assumes that i’m frigid or wrong or bad or abnormal (rather than the rather sexually liberated woman I am, so long as I feel I am in a secure, faithful relationship).
The other side of this minefield is not the definition of “good girl” but that a truly “good girl” is actually “bad/wrong/abnormal.”
But, what I think is happening is projection. I have only had sex in 6 month relationships, of which I’ve had 9 between ages 15 and 25, and therefore I am a good girl. You, who have never had sex, are actually a ‘good girl’ — but i can’t stand to think of myself as a slut, so I’m going to splinter you off as bad so that I can feel good. And I’m going to try to convince you that you NEED to be like me in order to be “ok” socially.
I still, btw, carry this fear. Which is why, when other women ask me how many partners I’ve had before my husband, I’m loathe to answer. I really don’t like being chastised for doing what I felt was morally, ethically, physically, sexually and everything else “right.”
And, I’m quite happy with my sex life “even though I don’t really know what it is like” becuase I’ve never been with anyone else. 🙂
For clarity sake:
This —
” I have only had sex in 6 month relationships, of which I’ve had 9 between ages 15 and 25, and therefore I am a good girl. You, who have never had sex, are actually a ‘good girl’ — but i can’t stand to think of myself as a slut, so I’m going to splinter you off as bad so that I can feel good. And I’m going to try to convince you that you NEED to be like me in order to be “ok” socially.”
— is me pretending to be the woman in Dalrock’s original blog, who has 6 month relationships in order to be a ‘good girl,’ but once confronted with a woman who really wants only one partner, she is contrasted as “not good” and not being able to tolerate being “not good” (or “bad”), she then tries to cast the “real good girl” as “bad/wrong/abnormal/frigid” and thereby pressure this girl into behaving like her.
In irony and youth, I simply had to hold out faith that being a virgin would be ok to a guy, not a detriment. Turned out well, actually.
@ lalady: “Not wanting to feel left out, I started something up with a guy that I wasn’t really attracted to, but that I knew would commit to me so I could lose my virginity and still be a good girl.”
@ ybm: “a large cohort of [Dalrock’s] readers, including myself, feel that women are useful for one thing only, and it is far easier for me to get that thing out of them, than for them to get any emotional investment out of me.”
lalady, what do you mean by “commit”? What did this guy do or what did you expect in terms of “commitment” before you would have sex? An amount of time he would spend with you? Sexual exclusivity? That he would not date other people?
ybm: “emotional investment” is clearer, but still kind of murky to me. What do you mean? Time you spend? You getting attached to one woman? ONEitis?
I’ve often said and seen it repeated that women are the gatekeepers of sex. They decide who to have sex with, when and under what circumstances. Men want the sex.
But men are the gatekeepers of investment and commitment. They decide what is invested, how much, when and to whom. And women want that investment and commitment — in the form of time, money, resources and exclusivity, it seems. Solomon II said sex before investment — crassly put and paraphrasing: “Never spend money on a woman you’re not banging. No lay, no pay.” The message is to limit the expenditures in time and money before you have sex. AFTER you get what you want sexualy, THEN you invest money.
Feminism has unintentionally created a shift in favor of men with game in the eternal tension between the sexes. The question now is “who will blink first? Who will put all his/her cards on the table first?” Men with game are getting women to “blink” first. To continue with the poker metaphors, men with game are holding their cards close, throwing in low antes and then making the women raise the stakes to uncomfortable levels, calling in the women’s trump cards and most valuable chips (sex), calling women’s bluffs, and finally forcing them to show their hands first
Some men don’t even realize how good their hands are. It’s as if each man comes to the table having an ace and he’s got a better than even chance of drawing a full house. Yet he cashes in early and folds to a woman with a pair of 9s. Some other men are simply folding and walking away from the table, taking all their chips with them.
Who’s going to blink first? Will she give him the sex without sufficient indicia of “investment” and “commitment”? If she does, she’s a slut. Or will he give her “investment” and “commitment” with no guarantee of seeing any “return” on his investment? If he does, he’s a chump and a loser. A lot of women make it very clear that lots of tribute and supplication out of the gate (gifts, flowers, expensive dinners) is seen as unattractive and creepy.
What exactly does a woman want in terms of “investment” and “commitment” in order to have sex? Seems to me the “investment” is time, money and resources: The time he spends with her, the money he spends on her, and his available resources (his job, property, house or car). Is that right? Or is “Investment” something intangible, like “emotional investment” as ybm calls it?
What is “commitment”? He sees/dates/hangs out with her exclusively? He has sex with her exclusively? He has been with her for a certain amount of days/weeks/months? I”ve had all of these thrown at me before.
I hope Dalrock does a post on this sometime.
[D: I love the poker metaphor. You have been on fire lately Deti. I don’t know if I have a post in me on that topic. I think investment is what most people mean when they throw around “commitment” outside of the context of marriage.]
To add to the discussion about above-board (okay) and “sneaking around” (bad) sex: I recently got in a conversation with some friends regarding the book “Restless Virgins,” which is about sex at an elite boarding school. Many of these friends had gone to co-ed boarding schools, and most of them were family-oriented “good girls” (these girls weren’t in boarding school because their parents couldn’t handle them or weren’t around, they were there because their parents wanted them to get better educations). In general, even among the “good” girls, the boarding school group tended to lose their virginity much earlier than non-boarding-school peers, probably because they didn’t have to “sneak” around in high school. Even if they did have to bend some rules to get into guys’ dorms, sneaking around on your RA is different and less “bad” from sneaking around on your parents in the eyes of a good, family-oriented girl.
@ Sweet As: That is an interesting perspective. It does seem like waiting for marriage has come to be seen as a kind of deviant choice, which I actually agree is unfortunate.
I can’t say this with any authority, of course, but I imagine that if for some reason you found yourself on the dating market again, I think most men would not mind that your only prior partner was your husband, but they might mind if you weren’t willing to have sex with them before marriage.
I lived through the dawn of the Sexual Revolution. It struck with incredible speed after the invention of reliable contraception (1963), the popularization of marijuana into a wider culture (appr. 1967-1972, depending on region), and Roe vs. Wade (1972). The first few years were kind of halcyon for beta guys. Girls would literally give it up to just about anybody who had a dime bag and a painted van.
After Watergate and the rise of the disco culture, girls got more discriminating about who got access. The ‘hot’ guys started to do better and other guys had to wait their turn. Yes, the betas lined up waiting for girls to get tossed off the carousel. This interim arrangement started breaking down after the advent of Grrl Power and Slut Culture.
Sweet As, I know women who have only ever had sex with their husbands.
Two main groups of people drove the denigration of virginity. Feminists and libertine men. Feminists wanted to hurt and humble men. A lot of men seem upset on the Internet about their wives’ sexual history. Libertine men got the pick of the crop and left the mess behind for lesser men to deal with.
Sweet as… simple explanation. The women who say this are shaming you in order to rationalize their own choices, and compete with you by getting you to lower your own value. The men who say this just want to get you into bed. You have nothing to fear.
LJ,
I’d have to take that with the best mind I could muster. If I felt that the man was truly committed to marriage — then I might consider it. My concern would be whether or not he is honest in his words and actions.
If there is real intention to marry — if this is the clear intention in the relationship and in his actions — then I would consider sex before marriage itself.
But, the risk is being used. And I do not want to be used.
And to be sure, it’s a very risky game. My son is involved now. I am his model for how women behave, should be treated, etc. And his expectation (unconscious, he’s only 3 — but I suspect it is the general understanding based on the research i am reading about the way boys grow up and perceive their mothers) is that I will be faithful to my husband (his father), and should his father pass away (which is the only foreseeable reason for me to leave him since I cannot imagine him succumbing to addiction or becoming abusive), then my next steps into relationship would have to be of the upmost morality to help maintain his sanctity.
So, I would hope that a future partner — should there be one — would understand the level of importance that I put on this child’s wellbeing, over his own sexual desires and ‘tests’ — and that I would likely be extremely cautious with such activities because I wouldn’t want to put my son through any suffering and confusion on this part.
I have watched the children of so many of my friends suffer, confused in so many ways, by the sexual behaviors of their mothers. The glib “getting groove back” behaviors are so confusing to both girl and boy children alike. I find that they struggle with what they feel is wrong about what their mothers are doing, btu still not wanting to perceive them in that way — and try to create a shifting morality that allows for that behavior. . . using some of the concepts that Dalrock mentions here.
My primary goal at this point is to see my son into manhood as a healthy, happy, and well adjusted person. If this means not remarrying (and therefore celibacy) because a man wouldn’t wait if I felt it was necessary, then that is what it means.
I would be willing to do that.
“I have said often in these forums that men should only marry virgins”
virginity and “good girl” is a straw-man. What we need is some teeth to the marriage contract, and the best way to do that is give fathers first choice child custody cases. The current “no fault” marriage contract and automatic mother custody is much worse than just impregnating a woman and shacking up, because in that situation his only potential liability will be child support, not asset division, child support, and alimony.
OffTheCuff, correct.
Misery loves company. No woman wants to consider herself a slut, so a chaste woman is a severe challenge. She is also a severe challenge to men who married girls who were bits of sluts. So out come the rationalisations. “Virgins are frigid”, “Men who want virgin brides are creepy”, “There are no virgins anyway”, “A man wants a woman with sexual expertise”, and so on.
Sweet As
I still, btw, carry this fear. Which is why, when other women ask me how many partners I’ve had before my husband, I’m loathe to answer.
There are several answers, starting with “Who wants to know?” and continuing on to “Why do you care?”, and eventually to “None of your business”. It’s always amazed me how many people feel obliged to answer snoopy, nosy, prying questions – questions that a previous generation would have shut down with “Mind your own business!” on the part of some women, and possibly a sock on the nose from some of the men.
Must be one of those women-would-rather-get-along-with-other-women things. My ancestresses on both sides of the family, so far as I know, would have shut such lines of questioning down immediately, and not cared whose feewings were hurt, either – private, “family business” was just that – private.
Another good answer would be, “My husband was my first, of course”. That would set their hamsters running.
@Deti
“ybm: “emotional investment” is clearer, but still kind of murky to me. What do you mean? Time you spend? You getting attached to one woman? ONEitis? ”
In effect, the answer can be best distilled down to, as you say, exterminating oneitis now and forever from sluts. Dalrock states “No Rings for Sluts” I am firm in my belief of “No Monogamy for Sluts”.
More broadly, men should withhold monogamy, money, and time for any woman who is a slut (More than 1 prior sexual partner, yes 1 not a typo). For me specifically, this means having 1-2 “meaningless sluts” of the carousel 25-35 age cohort (I’m 26) to satisfy myself with while testing the waters with Dalrock’s questionnaire for potential wives (a must read). As they become enraged at my lack of commitment I simply invoke the same thing I said when we started “you knew what this was”.
The Roissysphere is far too black and white when it comes to “dating is dead”. Dating, such as spending time doing fun things like hiking, and other outdoor activities are still alive and well. But they are reserved for very, very few women. The rest are relegated to f-buddy territory immediately. They will be spinsters, cat-ladies, aged sluts, and other associated riff-raff, and I learned long ago not to care.
Ybm, you are eminently strong. But you need to “cross the Rubicon”. Why stop at 1 previous lover? Try zero.
What you have written would frighten many young women. But if you want to complete the job, go to zero.
I will never understand why men put up with even one other man having been inside their wife.
I get the arguments in favor of sexual purity. It is just that we are the wrong species for that sort of thing. Just sayin…
Sweet As, there are social circles where your only having been with your husband would be met with joy and happiness. Like the ones I travel in. But certainly most of the women are older, Silent Gen and older Boomer in age range, with a few Gen Y thrown in there.
Dalrock,
Check out this headline from the Daily Mail UK website
“Katy Perry’s minister parents say her divorce was a gift from God to help them fill churches”
ybm:
Thanks for your answer.
NOt to get too caught up in semantics, but what you call “emotional investment” really seems to be “commitment”. That is, devotion to one woman to the exclusion of others, sexual exclusivity. When I was dating years ago, from women it was “if I’m gonna sex you, you won’t sex anyone else”.
Investment was time and money spent: dates with her, expensive dinners, “wining and dining”. In the woman’s frame, this is “required” to show the man’s good faith. The woman expects it as tribute, the price of admission, so to speak. Many men (formerly myself included) supplicated with tribute.
It used to be the men ante’d up first with money, time and exclusivity; and the women THEN gave up sex. What I’m seeing now is men shifting the frame and withholding the investment of time and money, and the commitment of exclusivity. If a woman says no, he bounce her, because he figures she wasn’t going to have sex with him anyway and any money and time is wasted.
What I’m seeing now is keeping the time and money investment at a minimum before sex. Drinks for an hour; maybe you buy one drink for her. A second date is drinks again at a couple of venues; going dutch. She’s to buy her own drinks most of the time. He’s expecting sex by the third or fourth date or hanging-out time. No sex, or she resists, or starts demanding more time or tribute? The man bails, he deletes her number, plain and simple. As far as commitment, I’m hearing many men are up front about the fact that they will “date” or “see” other women. If she’s not good with that, she’s bounced. If she’s pressing the guy about it, he tells her “none of your business” or he just stops seeing her.
Looks like more and more men are making the women put all their cards on the table sooner.
¨If and when the pendulum swings back, my guess is that older men and women are likely to find a way to “grandfather” in previously assessed good girls of the older generations, and younger women will see the changing rules and adjust accordingly. However, it also seems likely that women in their 20s and early 30s when the social mood shifts could end up being retroactively judged by a more stringent standard.¨
you seem to see alot of collaboration between older women and men
I see the great tradgedy of feminism to be played out and ended by the suffering of a generation of women who are about 30 to 50 years old right now.
There´s not going to be alot of collaboration from men with these women.
[D: This could rightly be called the Gilligan generation. What I am saying is older men won’t want to re-characterize women they already see as good girls as sluts. They might resist re-characterizing younger women as well, but it won’t matter if younger men are clear in their thinking.]
@Suz:
But in her mind, it wasn’t her fault. She believes that God must have some REALLY SPECIAL plans for her, because of the way He tested her. She does not repent her past behavior; she regrets the necessity for that behavior. Her ego is completely safe: not only is she blameless for her “past,” but she’s important enough to God for him to be so very visible in her life.
I hear this all the time and just don’t get it.
My understanding, reinforced during RCIA classes, is that our bad choices are part of God’s plan for us but our rejection of the same. Suffering doesn’t result from God testing us (we aren’t Job). It results from us separating ourselves from God and his plan.
Even the pagan concept of fate isn’t this destructive. While the idea of the fates leading to this does absolve people of responsibility for their bad choices it does not justify those choices.
I’m not one to see Satan behind every stone, but the proliferation of this idea that the suffering when we sin is part of God’s plan for us and thus justifies that sin is straight out of Lewis’s Screwtape. I would not be surprised to find him as its ultimate source.
@David
I’ve considered taking the last plunge, lord knows I could if I wanted to. My life might frighten women but really, is that not a lesson the should have learned from their grandmothers?
If they had held themselves to the standards of their ancestors (whether through lack of choice or necessity is irrelevant to me) and stayed chaste and loving, believe me the fruits are delicious. Coming from a small town in a farming community I am exposed to the women I talk about. For example, I mention the 2 women I am currently sleeping with (one a week or less, I really don’t need more than that) but I did not mention the 3rd woman.
So far she has met all of my criteria and has scored top grades (to use a cliche) on Dalrocks tests. You are probably not surprised to learn that she is a religious farm girl with an intact family, a strong patriarchal prescence, and a circle of female relatives who preach the old ways (we attend a traditional Roman Catholic church not a modern one). If sleeping with her (which I have not done, nor tried to force) was contingent on monogamy, I would abandon the other 2 the same day.
That is what college sluts, upper middle class white girls, and “Grrrrl power” feminists fail to understand, they are not the third woman, and they probably wouldn’t know how to be.
Then again I’m just a huge white knight mangina hahahahaha!!!
@Deti
“What I’m seeing now is keeping the time and money investment at a minimum before sex. Drinks for an hour; maybe you buy one drink for her. A second date is drinks again at a couple of venues; going dutch. She’s to buy her own drinks most of the time. He’s expecting sex by the third or fourth date or hanging-out time. No sex, or she resists, or starts demanding more time or tribute? The man bails, he deletes her number, plain and simple. As far as commitment, I’m hearing many men are up front about the fact that they will “date” or “see” other women. If she’s not good with that, she’s bounced. If she’s pressing the guy about it, he tells her “none of your business” or he just stops seeing her. ”
I guess I would have to say that I don’t, for lack of a better term, shit where I eat.
I shit in the club in the city (I commute into the city to the women I have sex with), the campus gym, the bar scene. I met both of the first two women at the bar.
I eat in the church functions, being introduced by family or at family events, or activities not geared toward meeting people. I met girl #3 because she joined her sisters/moms bowling team in our league.
They are two totally different classes of women, and I don’t think I’ve ever met a woman from the second class in the years I lived in the city before moving to where I am now.
ybm
Interesting. I attend the Traditional Latin Mass normally.
I will have to think about what you said. I was quite serious that men should set the bar for marriage at no previous partners. Some of the shame among husbands at their wives’ previous lovers is coming out now on the Internet, where men can be honest.
@ybm
I think I understand your reaction to what lalady shared but I also think her honesty in admitting what she did was very impressive. Very few women would be able to be so honest with themselves let alone with others. I take it as a gift of honesty to us, something which didn’t come cheap. She also has empathy for the high school boyfriend and regrets how she treated him.
@Sweet As
Anon Reader and David Collard have already given excellent replies, but I’ll add one more bit. I would treat this as something to look forward to. The next woman who asks you this, think only one word while you try not to smile:
Actually, you don’t have any choice now. It will happen whether you want it to or not. Not smiling is optional, by the way.
@Dalrock
Yes, I just find slut is one of those words men need to take back, the way african-americans took control and ownership of their racially charged words. The slutwalk is the attempt by women to take ownership and minimize the feelings that word should stir in a woman’s hindbrain. I reject that attempt and I think men should be willing to call a slut a slut so to speak.
[D: I’m offended by your patriarchal use of language to oppress women.]
@ Herb:
It’s not really theology, it’s status. People think “being tested” and surviving, is noble. Job’s story is dramatic, and dramatic people can identify with it. The Bible is just a tool Beth uses in her efforts to rearrange her past into a neat little fairy-tale, in which she is the heroine.
http://talkaboutmarriage.com/coping-infidelity/37714-i-am-cheater.html
I don’t even know which recent post this woman’ story enforces most so I’ll just put it here. In awe.
The slut concept arises from the notion that female sexuality is so precious that it can only be bestowed on a few, very high-value men.
To be a slut, then, would be to devalue herself, by giving too much of it away, rather than graciously bestowing it on only a few, very high-value alpha men.
This is somewhat related, but what are your thoughts regarding men who value their virginity to the point where they refuse to give it up to any woman who is not of reputable character and have high standards themselves. I would like to hear people’s opinions about how they genuinely feel about a man who has not lost his virginity and truly holds out for someone who will be sincere. it just feels like regardless of what I hear from friends, my honor and integrity or no longer of value..not even in the church. I’m just looking for answers..honestly.
Viceroy: A man’s V-card is neutral as best, heavily negative at worst. It can only hurt you.
Crimson Viceroy
I was and am religious and cautious. I refused to have sex with a few girls. And some were cute.
My wife was only my second. I went a bit crazy on her though, sexually. Pent up masculine desire.
Offthecuff,
Does that make it a bad thing to have a personal sense of honor and integrity? Does it mean that those of us who have such honor and integrity will always remain pariahs’ and lepers in society regardless of their value of their character?
CV
CV
Your problem is feminine hypergamy. Women want a desirable man. Women find handsome priests attractive and a challenge, because they could but choose not to.
Say you are an attractive man, with strong morals. You could impress a desired girl by saying something like, “I don’t like sluts in my bed”.
CV:
It’s one of those double standards we don’t want to look at too closely, for all sorts of reasons. Both genders see a sexual history as proof that you’re a man. Sure, we respect integrity and character, but If you’re a male virgin, we wonder (irrationally, really) if there’s something wrong with you. It sucks and we should be ashamed of ourselves, but it seems to run pretty deep. We humans can be very ugly.
@Crimson Viceroy
A man with a personal sense of honor and integrity already knows the answer to that question, as I assume you do.
From a practical point of view you face two challenges. The first is the lack of pre selection. You are limited in how much you can do about that without compromising your integrity, so it is what it is. However you should be able to help with this a bit though by learning how to game women in social settings without actually picking them up. Hawaiian Libertarian has a great post talking about this here. Incidentally I did this without knowing it just prior to meeting my wife. I had a PUA roomate who was a natural, and while he couldn’t explain what he did I was able to mimic enough of it to lightly game women I worked with. As a result, when my wife (who worked at the same place) asked another coworker about me the woman responded jealously “He’s out of your league”.
The other challenge is you lack the experience with women which would give you both confidence and a greater understanding of what women are really like. You can get an understanding by reading some of the game blogs. Solomon II and Rivelino in Spain come to mind. You don’t have to agree with their choices to learn from their experience, but they will give you a super concentrated dose of depedestalization. You don’t need to dislike women, but you need to clean out the mush our culture has planted in your head. It will help you actually love your wife much more if you do this, and you should be able to make her much more happy as well.
I’ve created a post just to list game resources (don’t miss the Dave from Hawaii link). I have found the game/PUA bloggers to be very gracious with men like us who have a different perspective and set of goals in life, but if you do go there I would remember you are their guest. The confidence part is a bit tougher but you can learn that frame of mind some as well from reading the game bloggers.
In theory, harsh envirnomental conditions could be enough to bring ecologically-imposed monogamy. But this is not going to happen in milder to tropical climates and in developed (or even emerging) countries.
Ecologically imposed monogamy apparently happened in Europe, long ago. Glacial hunting conditions created a man shortage, yet the same glacial condtions enforced monogamy. Monogamy plus fierce female competition produced sexual selection….
ABSTRACT
Human hair and eye color is unusually diverse in northern and eastern Europe. The many alleles involved (at least seven for hair color) and their independent origin over a short span of evolutionary time indicate some kind of selection. Sexual selection is particularly indicated because it is known to favor color traits and color polymorphisms. In addition, hair and eye color is most diverse in what used to be, when first peopled by hunter-gatherers, a unique ecozone of low-latitude continental tundra. This type of environment skews the operational sex ratio (OSR) of hunter-gatherers toward a male shortage in two ways: (1) men have to hunt highly mobile and spatially concentrated herbivores over longer distances, with no alternate food sources in case of failure, the result being more deaths among young men; (2) women have fewer opportunities for food gathering and thus require more male provisioning, the result being less polygyny. These two factors combine to leave more women than men unmated at any one time. Such an OSR imbalance would have increased the pressures of sexual selection on early European women, one possible outcome being an unusual complex of color traits: hair- and eye-color diversity and, possibly, extreme skin depigmentation.
http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(05)00059-0/abstract
Full text: http://www.ceacb.ucl.ac.uk/cultureclub/files/CC2006-03-07_Frost.pdf
I notice a tendency amongst virginal women to play very hard to get – as they have something valuable to protect – but then, after losing their virginity and thus having nothing to protect further, tend, on occasions, to go from modest to heavy-slutting overnight, as it were
This is even the case with rape victims I’ve known. Once it was taken from them, it “didn’t matter any more”, so their depressing logic went. In fact, the most promiscious women I’ve ever known (one with n>400 by her own admission) all got their start by being raped.
foremost, when people are asking, it’s on-topic. i’m seen as quite liberal, and i run in liberal circles, and in these circles, ladies like to redefine terms. like, for example, the term “ladies.” LOL
anyway, i don’t mind the truth or dare games, and it’s not frequent. it’s been a fair while, in fact, since i’ve had to answer. but, i also teach on this topic — eastern philosophy — and i do teach what one of those “ten commandments” are. men and women of the west *do not* like to hear it. LOL so, they’ve redefined it to mean “when you are following your heart and soul into new realms of self knowledge through consensual sexual expression.” Or, basically, sleeping around.
so, what is usually snapped back is the “but how many have YOU had” question, and I’ll answer that it is inappropriate to ask, but since she wanted to know if I was walking my talk, the answer is — only my husband, of course. And that leads to shock, dismay, and then silence.
you see, i don’t’ have to say the word, because they know that I’m thinking it. I’ve already explained the history and context of the term, it’s accurate translations and uses, discussed several modern and ancient treatise on the matter, and talked about it pragmatically in regards to how ‘sleeping around’ is unethical and why (personally, socially, and how it’s using other people, and using is definitely wrong, even if people are consenting to being used), and so . . . this is the last defense — “how many have YOU been with.” And they don’t like it that i say what I say, which then says to them “slut.”
Even though, i never said it. does it need to be?
besides, i want to keep teaching this topic. I actually have a handle on it. I took a workshop from a “luminary” westerner on this topic, and while he gave all of the intellectual info that I already knew (history, context, etc), when he got to the “practical applications” section, it was all about “consensual sex” and “following your heart.” To which, I stood up and asked the moral questions about “consensual using of each other, allowing ourselves to be used, etc.” he didn’t know how to answer, other than “that won’t work in the modern world.”
[D: No need to say it. Not saying probably has more power.]
and to be sure, i don’t think that word “slut.” i mostly think “ew, disease factory who willingly uses people.” (and i think that about MEN and WOMEN).
I am new to Dalrock’s blog as well. While I do agree with the general argument implied both in the blog and the red pill culture more broadly, I agree with it for the pure practical implications for both betas and women who come out on the losing end. That being said, I find the tone of the blog and of the comments incredibly negative/almost bitter…
“However there are signs that men, especially younger men with an understanding of game, may start to push this back in the other direction.”
I don’t believe the number of PUAs – men who intentionally use Game – will ever be high enough to meaningfully effect society. In my experience, only a small proportion of men have the emotional strength to accept that Game works.
@Deti
The anti male culture and the attitude towards men in general have made men less likely to waste resources on women with out sex. I have been on only one date in my life. Theusual way I got with a woman was to pick up at a night club. This was all years before the internet and what I know of the manosphere now. ( can you imagine a 15-16 year old boy hanging around these blogs now a days even partialy aware of what we have taught ourseves) The feminist liberated mindset that has girls riding the cock carousel with the ever present “herd” mentality was graphicly discribed in detail and actual practice by lalady. That is the herd driven drive to the cock carousel looks like and destroys young souls like.
Right now this subject makes for good thoughtful conversation. With men needing game and being able to vet a woman to decide long term commitment value. The game changer is a male pill. It would be a modern hi capcity gun in a world of knife fighting. Right now we (MRA’s) are trying to teach men to knife fight male birth conrol with the power of the lie is a man with no knife fighting ability at all beating knife fighters every time without any skill at knife.
There is going to be one hell of a lost generation of women when this happens and men figure this out. It will be fast maybe 2 to 3 years and poof a desparate and hysterical sexual market place.
I’m reminded of John Travolta’s line in “Saturday Night Fever” when he is teaching one of the girls chasing him about the facts of life: “That’s the thing a girl’s gotta decide early on. You gotta decide whether you’re gonna be a nice girl or a c***.”
The scene should be on Youtube for anyone who wants to find it.
“I don’t know exactly what did drive the 60s, but I can’t see how it could have been top down. The infrastructure would’ve had to have been in place in the schools and the media in the 50s, and it simply wasn’t.
Maybe it was the depression/WWII generation making everything far too easy for their kids. I really don’t know.”
The sexual revolution was caused by a combination of modern technologies: the washing-machine, refrigeration, the microwave, the Pill, and modern war technology. Women had always been hedonistic throughout human history, they were just prevented from acting on their urges by the necessity of survival. But the washing-machine, micro-wave, and refrigeration freed women from having to spend their days engaging in traditional chores such as washing clothes and cooking meals; the Pill erased the threat of unwanted pregnancy; and modern war technology decreased the manpower needed for sucessful warfare, freeing women from being baby machines.
Like it or not, trying to indoctrinate women to be less promiscuous will not work. Feminism and the sexual revolution were created by new technologies. They can only be defeated by the creation of new technologies…
Like it or not, trying to indoctrinate women to be less promiscuous will not work. Feminism and the sexual revolution were created by new technologies. They can only be defeated by the creation of new technologies…
This is true, the feral behavior is actually “normal’ behavior gone unchecked. .
I read a study a few years ago that stated (paraphrasing):
When, and to the extent that a culture suppresses female sexuality, the suppression is done by the women in that culture or on their behalf.
As I recall (I’d can look it up for you if you want) this was found to be true cross-culturally and historically. It’s universal, part of the human condition.
This is so for a couple of reasons. 1.) Maintaining the value of women in the SMP. 2.) To protect younger women from themselves and from the consequences of promiscuous behavior. There were other, more subtle consequences besides the obvious:STDs, unwanted pregnancy, etc. There was the loss of familial status from having a promiscuous or aldulterous woman – a very bad thing in a time of arranged marriages.
When women in western societies ceased shaming slutty behavior and started to encourage it, or at least to enable rationalizing it, then there was nothing to check that behavior. We are now seeing another consequence. Men don’t want to marry promiscuous women. Men who have a choice in the matter (attractive men) won’t.
Dalrock posted some time ago about how powerful it is when MEN do the slut shaming. I think that’s because it’s not our job. Slut shaming is women’s work. When it has gotten to the point that we men notice your promiscuity, we’re out of the realm of protecting from the consequence. Our disapproval IS a consequence.
Like it or not, trying to indoctrinate women to be less promiscuous will not work. Feminism and the sexual revolution were created by new technologies. They can only be defeated by the creation of new technologies…
DNA testing of all offspring, for one.
Soon, perhaps, another will be invented — fast PCR testing of body fluids for HIV, Herpes, and the various HPV strains. Anybody with a hidden viral load will one day be rejected.
“If and when the pendulum swings back, my guess is that older men and women are likely to find a way to “grandfather” in previously assessed good girls of the older generations, and younger women will see the changing rules and adjust accordingly.”
That is one of the most amusing things you have written, “handmaid’s tale” is more likely, this kind of shift only occurs when there is a recognition of why a bad girl is a bad girl, and there is no grandfathering for that.
If men knew the actual cuckold rate, if they all recognized the strong correlation between numbers and divorce and infidelity for a woman, the “grandfathered women” would be viewed with distrust and a jaundiced eye.
Some women friends on facebook have copied and pasted this little gem:
“Every woman deserves a man that calls her baby. Kisses her like he means it. Holds her tight like he never wants to let her go. Doesn’t make her jealous with other women but instead makes other women jealous of her. A man who is not afraid to let his friends know how he really feels about her. And most definitely makes sure she knows how much he loves her.”
I can think of a few who dont.
No one likes being judged and we are terrified that the judgement that is passed on us will be final. We always have one more argument to make on our own behalf. A guy with a rap sheet as long as his leg will still reject the label “criminal”. I’ve seen it and I’d bet that commenter Buck could back me up on that one. The woman who’s had more foreign DNA injected into her than a Watson & Crick petri dish will insist that she’s not a slut. If they can just explain their side of it, you’d see, they say. The rapist and the pedophile each think the other is a sick f*ck, but that no one understands them. The serial monogamist and the “town bike” don’t hold each other in the kind of regard that they think all men should hold them. And none of them can deal with the prospect of there being permanent consequences, including being labelled, being judged without appeal.
This judgment is a consequence of women failing to enforce social norms upon their daughters, sisters, nieces and peers. They’re trying to change the game now, moving goalposts. They’re redefining promiscuity to fool or shame men into accepting unmarriagable women into our lives, into trying to build families with them. And when men are younger and more romantic and thinking with their dicks, they can succeed somewhat. After we’ve gotten older, lived enough to see through the distortion, they can’t. Which is why you’re seeing more of a remarriage strike than a marriage strike.
I don’t have any answers on how this could change. Currently there are too many women who will click Like on that stupid quote above. Go Team Woman, right? And most beta guys, average frustrated chumps, will take any kind of lovin’ they can get. But I do think you’re on to something with changing the language.
@Country Lawyer
My point is that older men are some of the worst white knights around. I’m assuming that any change would be driven by young men wising up to what their fathers and grandfathers are in serious denial of. Older men can’t stop younger men from acting in their own best interest so long as the younger men wise up. At the same time younger men aren’t deciding if they want to marry grandma, so there isn’t much incentive for them to argue the issue with Grandpa. To the extent that Grandma was already granted “good girl” status, the younger men would seem likely to me to let the issue lie.
“Like it or not, trying to indoctrinate women to be less promiscuous will not work. Feminism and the sexual revolution were created by new technologies. They can only be defeated by the creation of new technologies…”
I have to disagree. Women who can afford domestic help and rarely need to lift a finger to survive – upper class women – have the lowest rates of divorce and cuckoldry. DNA tests show that it’s lower class women, and increasingly middle class women, whose babies genes don’t match the father’s name on the birth certificate.
“I will never understand why men put up with even one other man having been inside their wife.” – David Collard
Not like there’s much choice around. It’s either between a “slightly used” floor model, a refurbished product that’s been rode hard and put away wet, or a lifetime with your hand.
Most of the women worth having as a wife are snapped up early and kept out of the rotation because they were raised right, and didn’t submit to their hamster’s urges of playing “Chase the Alpha”.
@Crimson Viceroy: Being in your situation too, I keep in mind that it’s best to not be involved with sluts and their games.
Because being involved with someone out of convenience, means you are unavailable to take the opportunity of leaving (without getting penalised TWICE: once for leaving “even though you say you are a principled guy” and secondly by the girl runnin relational aggression against you).
Seeing people from university going through all their turmoil in juggling sluts and studs, I find that getting on in life is far more satisfying than that.
Remember that no matter what the sluts say … they CHOSE the players of their own free will.
“I have to disagree. Women who can afford domestic help and rarely need to lift a finger to survive – upper class women – have the lowest rates of divorce and cuckoldry. DNA tests show that it’s lower class women, and increasingly middle class women, whose babies genes don’t match the father’s name on the birth certificate.”
I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at. This is not meant as sarcasm. Could you elaborate?
Anonymous 4:10 am:
Let me take a crack at this. Upper class men are the most insulated from the financial consequences of divorce. Upper class and upper middle class men and women both tend to be better educated, have more developed future time orientations, better understand short range and long range consequences, and are better at planning and executive decisionmaking. These women understand the severe social consequences from cuckoldry, and more specifically, being discovered as a cuckold.
Divorce leading to single motherhood is low class behavior. Getting knocked up is low class. Bastardy is low class. Unwed mother status is low class. It is evidence of impulsive behavior, poor planning, and failure to understand short- and long-range consequences. For all intents and purposes, a working class or middle class girl who gets knocked up is relegating herself to eventual divorce and spinsterhood.
Let me take on Anonymous 4:10’s question. This observation
“I have to disagree. Women who can afford domestic help and rarely need to lift a finger to survive – upper class women – have the lowest rates of divorce and cuckoldry. DNA tests show that it’s lower class women, and increasingly middle class women, whose babies genes don’t match the father’s name on the birth certificate.”
was a comment about this sentence:
“Like it or not, trying to indoctrinate women to be less promiscuous will not work. Feminism and the sexual revolution were created by new technologies. They can only be defeated by the creation of new technologies…”
I think that what the writer was aiming at is disproving this argument. If promiscuity was only related to technology, high class women and low class women would behave the same (after all, all women have the same access to birth control technology). So it is not only a technology issue but a cultural issue too. I think this is what the writer tried to say.
Re-reading this thread, I too am particularily impressed with Deti’s 3.51 pm post; indeed I wish I had written it myself, although, as I have no knowledge of Poker that would clearly have been impossible. What I think worth emphasising is, as Deti says, that women nowadays see traditional male behaviour indicative of Interest and Committment as creepy – somehow in their liberation they have forgotten how to respond appropriately, without abuse or freaking-out at signs of courtship. This is surely very strange, and forces men, if they wish to have any form of communication with women, to be players; however, as the women lie back post-coitus, thinking they have bagged an Alpha, he will be on with his Trousers [Pants] and heading for the door. Indeed there truly are no good men left. Waaaaaaah Waaaah.
@Deti
I think investment covers time, money and emotion. Think of Rivelino with Blondie. She isn’t getting much investment from him on any of those fronts beyond the very bare minimum.
Deti says, that women nowadays see traditional male behaviour indicative of Interest and Committment as creepy WHEN IT COMES FROM BETAS.
Fixed for you. You’re welcome.
@Deti and Imnobody – yes, that’s what I was saying.
van Rooinek
I do not deny ecologically-imposed monogamy worked in Europe. In fact after ecologically-imposed monogamy came cultural monogamy – Greeks, Romans, Germans – then Christians. This all played role of who we are now and why Western civilisation exists.
I am saying this in not going to happen again and that we are moving to promiscuity – hidden extreme polygyny.
Recently I was wondering why descendants of Central American (pre-Columbus) civilisations’ builders are not able to create anything similar and their IQ is at Hispanics levels. I was wondering why Greece and Southern Italy are not European technological/civilisation centres. Obviously some kind of natural selection cut numbers of builders of civilisation*.
I think this is happening now with whole Western civilisation. See for example Helmuth Nyborg’s work on IQ changes in Denmark.
*Civilisation exists due to excessive work of beta men.
The modern origins of the sexual revolution were way before 1960 and the wide availability of the birth control bill, and it didn’t first occur in America. (I say modern origins because some say that some sects of early Christians in the first couple of hundred years AD also believed in free love, though I’ve never researched that one.) It occurred or was first carried out anyway in early post revolutionary communist Russia, as an official communist state ideology:
Lenin and his Bolshevik communists believed that marriage was in its essence a patriarchal and conservative building block of the old traditional society, tended to hold back the transition to the equalist communist man, and for that reasons should be destroyed as much as possible.
http://awildolivebranch.blogspot.com/2006/10/sexual-revolution-disaster-in.html
With the invention and rapid widespread availability of the birth control pill by the mid 1960’s, American and Anglosphere cultural Marxists, or the New Left, such as Herbert Marcuse (who could trace their somewhat different from traditional Marxist heritage to the Frankford school, which fled that city for America after Hitler came to power), felt that free love, or the sexual revolution, could and should be now safely tried again, in a spirit of excited adventurousness. People actually talked about free love as such esp. during and after 1967, up until about the mid 70’s, when the spirit that girls at least should, in the progressive spirit of the times be pretty indiscriminate about who the had sex with evaporated a lot. Still a lot of slutty sex went on in the 1970s before the aids panic burst upon the scenes in the early 80’s. People were convinced that heterosexuals were gonna be getting it in huge numbers any day now, and the media felt it was progressive towards gays to not do much to dissipate that fear for quite a while.
Sweet As,
Your posting got me to thinking about what I would do if the lovely and gracious Mrs Buck were no longer in the picture.
My first inclination would be to stay single…I did enjoy my bachelor days.
If I were to look for a LTR, a widow would be a very viable choice, especially one with only one prior partner and raising the deceased husbands child in this circumstance would be an act of Christian charity and soul enhancing.
As an aside, a good friend of mine is in this exact situation and his relationship with the step-daughter is amazing, he truly took her on as his own and she is a lovely, well adjusted woman, now married and they are expecting a grandchild soon.
I’m a bit taken aback that men responded with shock at your single partner life, I would have congratulated you, (you,sadly are a rarity).
I’m forever amazed at the sexual details women volunteer publicly. The posting I did earlier are tidbits that I really didn’t want to know.
@Krakonos
I think there is a strong argument that to be a productive member of modern society lifetime monogamy is a strongly selected for trait. Those who are following polygyny or serial monogamy are at significant risk of their children dropping out of the productive classes. At the macro level there may not be selective pressure due to the welfare state, but I do think it matters whether one’s offspring fall into the underclass or not.
I found the Alan Watt videos which speak of the changes in the 1950s in the UK interesting, particularly the effects of television on the social interactions of families. As we know our neighbours less and less we care less and less for them and their famiolies and hence bad (i.e. slutty) behaviour was less reported to a girl’s parents for them to put a stop to it and a generation on parents don’t even realise that it is wrong.
When the AIDs panic hit in the early 1980’s there was an about immediate clamping down against promiscuity and having any promiscuous partners, for most people. It wasn’t just that condoms became mandatory all the time, there was also just a general revulsion against STD’s, having had any sketchy sex partners (one stopped admitting that), and so on. The 80’s, the Reagan era, was also a relatively quiescent time for American feminism.
By the early 90’s much of this had lifted as people began to realize that not much hiv had proliferated among non IV drug using heterosexuals, and that most that had, had come through blood transfusions, which then became screened for hiv. The early and mid nineties then saw the rise of sex once again of positive feminism, particularly among younger, college age and soon after gen X women, now called third wave feminism. This wave was also big behind the whole campus rape hysteria, “take back the night”, though all of that had started with 2nd wavers Susan Brownmiller, Catherine McKinnon and uber ugly Dworkin.
Rejuvinated 90’s feminism brought US men the joys of greatly ratcheted up child support=also stealth alimony, sexual harassment law, and VAWA.
@Doug1.
Great comment. I have not realized that American feminism was somewhat inactive during the 80’s . I was a teenager then but I lived in my native country. But now that I am remembering the American movies and news I grew up with, I can’t recall anything related to feminism.
80s feminism as I recall was more about office-place girlpower and the celebration of the empowerment of divorce and single motherhood for women. The movies I recall were often about short haired marginally attractive women turning the enterprise around which brutish men had mismanaged, and then scoring the top alpha (who was also more “enlightened” than the brutes who had mismanaged the enterprise). I think this was also when we first started to see the full barrage of the theme of incompetent fathers. Some of this was the comic “gee isn’t it funny that he is so worthless”, but much of it was darker about how women needed to kick the father out to save the children, deadbeat dads, etc.
I think there is a strong argument that to be a productive member of modern society lifetime monogamy is a strongly selected for trait. Those who are following polygyny or serial monogamy are at significant risk of their children dropping out of the productive classes. At the macro level there may not be selective pressure due to the welfare state, but I do think it matters whether one’s offspring fall into the underclass or not.
You’re right as far as it goes, Dalrock, but the true problem is that there is no selection for “being a productive member of modern society” anymore in the first place. The decks are all stacked against those who still try to follow the old mores, with the result that their numbers will fall with each succeeding generation as people – young people – wise up to their true predicament. “Interesting times” will arrive when the ratio of producers to shirkers reaches a breaking point, but as these movements are slow I expect that to take several decades.
deti,
“Much has been written in the so-called PUAsphere/Gamesphere about the SMP being a “secret world” to average men. Women and alpha males know the reality of the SMP and female sexuality and they basically conspire to keep the hordes of beta men in the dark about it. I think this behavior is more subconscious than conscious on the part of women.”
The more I learn about game the more resonant the “secret world” meme is. The divide between guys who know (instinctively or consciously) how to work the system versus those who don’t is astounding. It’s amazing for me to implement some game into my life and see not only how the dynamics work on a real-time level, but how many situations in my earlier life where i had no clue what was going on under the surface.
It was me who said that, not deti.
Darlock
“I think there is a strong argument that to be a productive member of modern society lifetime monogamy is a strongly selected for trait. Those who are following polygyny or serial monogamy are at significant risk of their children dropping out of the productive classes. At the macro level there may not be selective pressure due to the welfare state, but I do think it matters whether one’s offspring fall into the underclass or not.”
The problem is not the underclass class per se, but effects of promiscuity/polygyny (together with low fertility of “productive” long term oriented and high IQ people) on a society as a whole. With too many members low IQ and/or impulsive you cannot maintain civilisation in the first place. And you cannot apply productive nature or high IQ in a resulting society plus there would be no evolutionary advantage of such traits anyway.
80s feminism as I recall was more about office-place girlpower and the celebration of the empowerment of divorce and single motherhood for women. The movies I recall were often about short haired marginally attractive women turning the enterprise around which brutish men had mismanaged, and then scoring the top alpha
I remember now, Dalrock. It was http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096463/ and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091396/
I remember this too. Back then, I was so young and naive that I didn’t see them as a feminist movies but they were so indeed.
[D: Probably repressed memories! Good finds. I was fortunate enough to never see the Legal Eagles one.]
I would say that women share these things — publically/with each other — as an aspect of social posturing, which is a MASSIVE aspect of female culture.
I know that males also posture, but the posturing is different and far more “systemized?” for lack of a better word. In the post Dalrock did about “don’t hit me I’m a girl” after a woman “apes” male posturing, she truly doesn’t understand the “rules” or underlying male mechanisms — which are IMO both innate in the sex as well as cultural, taught male-to-male (usually fathers AND mentors to sons and boys, who then work out their pecking orders in the same systematic fashion).
Female culture IS different, and for me, inherently frustrating. I think I’m tool stubborn.
@LM – I would honestly say the standard is more than one sex partner makes a girl a slut, as a young man looking for a wife now that I’m out of college and beginning my career. Most guys I know would just basically use girls with greater than 1 or maybe 2 partners as free ho’s, because that’s what they were for many men anyway, and voluntarily so. I personally am only dating Christian women these days and cut them out when I find they are just sluts with a cross necklace, and Im considering women overseas. I refuse to invest in a girl with more than 1 past sex partner, and put a high value on virginIty. Virgins are essentially the true non sluts though. All of the successful young men I know are taking my approach, and many of them aren’t even religious, and we’re all from DC and Boston (east coast). Tell that woman you’re counseling that if she hopes to marry a guy with any kind of real achievement and a future, who is also good and loyal, she better stay virgin. Marrying kinda young isn’t bad either, as long as one is smart about it. Actually I deliberately seek out 18-20 because they have had less time to ruin their SMV.
Remnant: Yeah, last year I re-watched the movie for the first time since it came out and I also reacted to that line. This manosphere knowledge has always been around, but has been cut out in “polite society”, for lack of a better word. I guess that it has mostly remained outside of that, like in ghetto culture, traditional cultures, newly arrived immigrants and the highest classes (anything the chattering classes see as misogynistic cultures).
TFH
“Instead, they end up with Mr. Bigglesworth.”
Ending up with a pilot (fighter), adventurer and a globetrotter is not so bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biggles
He is the only Bigglesworth I know…
OT
David Collard wrote January 6, 2012 at 5:41 pm:
Yes, various shaming techniques here on WWW-world are not equally effective than on non-virtual world. Of course message is tried to overwhelm with noise.
There exists trends which tries forbid messages with anonymous handles. If that trend succeed, then these various shaming techniques may come back .
/ Kari Hurtta
Suz wrote January 6, 2012 at 7:29 pm:
Yeah, a man is a dread then. That is implied.
/ Kari Hurtta
Anonymous wrote at January 6, 2012 at 8:33 pm:
Yes. I guess that you are correct.
Spinsterhood cry also needs to take several rounds before it is any effect society.
/ Kari Hurtta
Anonymous wrote at January 6, 2012 at 9:25 pm:
And these changes are something what was expected when new technologies was created. So it is likely that changes will be unexpected side effects of new technologies.
/ Kari Hurtta
@Bob, I was actually asking if more than 1 lifetime partner makes a girl a slut, so if you agree with that, then presuming you hope to be one of her partners, you only date virgins?
If no, I’m curious why 3 total lifetime partners is bad but 2 is ok.
2nd Q: if you met a woman you really liked who was a virgin and waiting for marriage, then I assume you would be okay with that? That is you would date her but wait for sex until after the wedding?
Firstly,
I want to thank you Dalrock for all of the insight that you have offered; lots of valuable information that you have imparted. And I reread the piece on the Gilligans; again very insightful.
However,
I think that you are missing your mark in your expectations of men who are beyond their youth, I also noticed that Country Lawyer was questioning of this also. Now, we can quibble over the meanings of older and old and I will concede that you are indeed correct that old men are largely like the Gilligans, but Let´s look at what I will call the extended Xers. A cohort that would include roughly any male born after 1960 until about 1980. I´m smack dab in the middle born in 1968; a star-crossed year if ever there was one.
Ya know,
I used to be young and dumb and…I remember thinking desperate thoughts of not being able to fulfill my desires. It seems a little funny now as my worries were for not. But twenty years hence and they say you can´t teach an old dog new tricks but you don´t have to: He is already tricky enough as it is. And what is worse is that he is no longer full of…
Alot of the bloggers in the manosphere( the whole blogosphere for that matter) tend to be younger as a result of the technology still being relatively new; good insights from many of them but still from a younger perspective. The few older or old bloggers seem tinged with the Gilligan or too dated in their writings; a function of age I suppose. I read Captain Capitalism. I think that you are aware of him; he´s good. He expresses many of the sentiments of men our age. Another valuable older writer is Zed for an example of someone with a little different perspective.
However, changes occured to me after I hit about 40 that are so profound that they kinda have me stunned. I remember becoming much more tranquil at 30 but after 40 most of the remaining vehemence has largely left me.
I am a Red Pill Man.
So, what is left after 40. Well about half of a lifetime; second-half. New fantasies:
My fantasies for the future are about a comfortable home for me( just for me). A nice kitchen somewhat equiped. Being able to while-away a day in the kitchen making something good to eat, my computer and internet present. A garden. Some chickens, other fowl. Living in rural Florida, enjoying outdoor activities year-around, a nicely landscaped aboveground pool.
As for women, I used to always see myself continuing to live with a woman. Not anymore. To the contrary, what I worry about is that the new fantasies would be severely compromised with a woman. They would detract and not add to the fantasy. I can only work up an insipid thought about dating. And only if it is very pleasurable dating. Maybe chat with nice Colombianas, Peruanas, Filipinas; go visit them or not. But ultimately having my sanctuary. Trying to maintain friendships, it is good for you. Continuing with some political activism. Is this a normal evolution for a single older man? Will alot of aging men come to similar conclusions?
So, the Gilligans are dieing; not that I am happy about that. Good men are being lost. Other men with other experiences are going to be filling their place; an increasingly red-pill cohort to one degree or the other.
I would like to reiterate my earlier statement:
I see the great tradgedy of feminism to be played out and ended by the suffering of a generation of women who are about 30 to 50 years old right now.
Younger women, powerful; older women not so much. Younger men, troubled; older men, not so much.
There is a coming dissonance when added to all of the other dissonances in society that will be finding it´s correction.
(Q was directed at Bob, my first comment is in moderation)
Senior Manchild,
Interesting comment. I’m roughly your age (2 years younger). I think I was overly brief in the area that you and Country Lawyer are responding to (my fault entirely). What I am thinking is that men who have already married women they deemed as good girls and those women have and continue to do right by their husbands and children will continue to see them as good girls even if the culture changes. Most likely parts of their past (to the extent that they are known) will simply be forgotten for the most part. There are other older women who have made a disaster of their own life and the lives of others (such as the 5 time divorcée Suz mentions) who would be much more likely to be viewed through new eyes.
If I understand your comment correctly you are reminding me that it isn’t only men in their 20s and 30s who are unmarried, and therefore are potentially in the position to vote with their actions regarding good girl and slut. This is an excellent point, and I wasn’t assuming that older unmarried men would be oblivious to the changing landscape. You use an interesting term however which I’ve been rolling around for a post for a few months now. You refer to new technology and younger people adopting it more quickly. I definitely see game as new technology. It isn’t surprising that young people are quicker to adopt.
Edit: I wanted to thank you for your kind words and address one more thing. It makes sense to me that as men get older they might see the prospect of marriage or a live together relationship very differently. I think this is part of the significant risk the bubble of unmarried women now in their 20s and early 30s are taking right now. Some men will continue on building their careers but as women continue to wait out the clock lose their own urgency (or even ultimate desire) to marry as you have. Other men will take the cues from around them and decide working their tails off isn’t worth the effort. Even if these men decided in 5-10 years that they wanted to marry, they wouldn’t be considered prime candidates. They might have been had they experienced the signals that previous generations of men had experienced (they or their peers in “serious” LTRs, the men their age or a few years older marrying in significant numbers). The signals still exist, however they are much weaker. Other men are likely to build up their wealth and career as you have, decide they want to marry, but cut out from consideration the women their own age who are finally tiring of the carousel and looking for a sucker. There are so many ways men from this cohort can peel off that it strikes me as a very stupid bet for the women as a group to make. Many of them will exit the carousel with a soft landing and go on to the next phase of being married and having children for sure. But even if say only 10-20% of them end up being unable to find a suitable man willing to marry them would be a very painful outcome.
@ Bob – Taking out the small number of former sluts from the secular marketplace who repented of their ways, most raised devout Christian women aren’t nowhere near sluthood. You’re too busy talking to these ”Christians” btw -> http://www.alittleleaven.com
LJ – I don’t only date virgins because, well, it’s really hard to pick them out. It’s not like they have a t-shirt on that signifies it. But in general, when I go out with a woman and I hear she has had more than 1 partner it raises red flags. I think many girls fall in love with a guy and then sleep with him assuming the romantic relationship is forever, and I understand if a girl does that once, so it’s forgivable, but more than that and she obviously hasn’t learned her lesson. The more partners a female has the less able she is to form a “pair bond” with a husband – it’s hard for her to make a deep emotional connection with him that lasts. She also shows she has little self control. Many women, I believe most American women and perhaps even most American Christian women, have the mindset of a slut, which is, “it’s too hard to wait, so I’m just going to only wait until a man impresses me enough and plays his cards in such a way that after I have sex with him I can still feel like a ‘good girl.'”
Am I willing to forgive a deep, awful sexual history of a woman? I suppose I am if I met the right woman and sense she was truly contrite for her past and has a true change of heart. I have not seen that yet though. Marriage is a huge deal to me. Divorce is unacceptable, not only on a spiritual level, but because I make a good amount of money and I am loathe to have to give half of it to some woman who cheats on me or gets bored and leaves. I’m also in the military and I would absolutely not be able to handle it if a woman cheated on me while I was in a warzone. When I go overseas and I need to have full faith in my woman, and in return she can have full faith in me as I’m loyal unto death. I think I deserve loyalty if I give it so strongly.
To answer your second question, LJ, if I met a virgin who was waiting until marriage, I would be more than happy to oblige. I would wait, a girl like that is definitely worth waiting for. Sure, it would be hard, but I was engaged for 2.5 years while I was in college to a woman I essentially shacked up with (bad idea, I know now) and it taught me that sex is not the end all be all. You need to postpone short term happiness for long term happiness sometimes. Marriage is lifelong, so men and women need to take it really seriously.
PUA’s really will never be around in great enough numbers to change society (thank God), but GAME will affect enough men to change society. I have no intention of cadding around, but I am a voracious reader of game material, and so are many of my other friends. It’s surprising to find out how many men have read The Game or similar books. You don’t need to use the skills you learn from PUAland to just sleep around, you can use them to find a girlfriend or enhance your relationship kind of like Dalrock did with his wife. That’s why I think the MRM is idiotic to wage war on the PUA’s, because most PUA’s even say upfront “perhaps you want to use these skills just to find one special woman, and that’s cool too.” Game puts men back in control and helps them redeem their manhood after years of beta indoctrination. Game is increasingly widespread. I teach it to other men all the time, I’m kind of a go-to-guy for girl advice, and I’m proud of my little minions who are in turn sharing it with other men.
Everything goes in cycles. Look at Rome. They were a fairly moral, patriarchal society in the beginning. Then, they became a very matriarchal society, and debauchery was widespread (incidentally, so was infanticide). There was still a minority class of moral people, who had many children and did NOT commit infanticide, and they ultimately became the majority. In America and Europe, the “progressives” hardly breed, and kill the children they do have, so their population is in decline, while the population of Christians, Jews and even Muslim’s is continually multiplying – and I’m talking serious Christians, Jews and Muslim’s, not just idiots who call themselves that and go support gay marriage and abortion and attend services once a year. The only thing fueling the “progressives” are schools and media which brainwash the children of the good parents into being cads and sluts like it’s normal. However, parents are becoming very wise to this. Look at the explosion of home schooling in America, and the huge growth of religious colleges and private schools. This is why the fight for school vouchers is integral to the moral among us – the public schools are our enemy. Liberal college professors and the media are also our enemy, so we need to avoid the former and educate our children on the latter so that they are not deceived by the enticing lies of shows like Sex and the City or even 2 and a Half Men.
¨There are so many ways men from this cohort can peel off that it strikes me as a very stupid bet for the women as a group to make¨
I will not be marrying at this stage in life. I am not a fan of young women; but of course, you know, ¨firm¨ is nice. I sometimes think to myself what it would take to continue to live in the same house as a woman. It recently occurred to me that I might like a woman that has a canal house down in Lauderdale where I can tie up. But seriously, I doubt that I could really aspire to a woman that has an old dock out back somewhere way upstream on the St. John; who knows.
¨Other men will take the cues from around them and decide working their tails off isn’t worth the effort. Even if these men decided in 5-10 years that they wanted to marry, they wouldn’t be considered prime candidates¨
No disrespect Dalrock, but don´t care much. And here´s the thing: What? is going to be considered a prime candidate in 5-10 years. And at my present rate of increasing apathy, what am I going to be thinking in another 5-10 years?
I believe it was here on your forum that Tom Leykis´ name got mentioned not too long ago. I remember Tom. He was an interesting voice a couple of years ago. Out in fly-over country, I only got acquainted with him there at the end through our new technologies. But what occurred to me after he went off the air was that he probably wasn´t that interested anymore in the young man´s battles. He was doing some high lifestyle program there at the end; probably depicting how he was enjoying life. He talked glowingly about his life, his home, his pursuits in the afternoon show.
So, in the future, can I look to be so totally uninterested in women that even a Lauderdale canal house would not interest me? Just so you know, I am not rich but it doesn´t really take that much money to buy piece and tranquility, some or alot of pleasures depending on your expectations.
I´ve got some more thoughts but I´ll develop them a little more first.
Well, you see “prime candidate” is a relative term. The more men who refuse to put up enormous sums for any female attention, the more the price of female attention drops. In any case, the only way to be a “prime candidate” in America today is to be born to it.
And don’t tell me you are a “prime candidate”. Do you make over 300,000 dollars a year as MORE THAN 1 in 40 fully employed men do?
No? Maybe you should try to be born to a more “special” mother. Hard work will get you there.
And PLEASE mention Bill Gates.
Bill Gates Mommy:
So, how did Bill Gates get the attention of IBM?
My “prime candidate” term is being taken differently than I intended. I’m not judging other men based on whether women want to marry them or not. I’m referring to the risk the women delaying marriage are taking. Not only do their own fortunes decline as they age, but they’ve “had a lot of time to think about how a man should treat them”. The longer a woman waits, the longer her list tends to be. This isn’t a shot at the men who aren’t motivated to jump through the hoops of aging carouselers and career women.
@Bob: Ah, well that’s good. You seem to have a good approach to things and that you’ll be able to find a worthy woman. There are other guys unfortunately who are players but still want a nice chaste girl, but obviously that’s not you.
PT Barnum—
Bill Gates wrote the first Basic programming language for personal computers. In the late 1970’s there were basically two types of personal computers that would do anything useful. There was the Apple II computer which was mostly a hobbyists toy until visicalc wrote the first pc spreadsheet for it. Then it got taken up by some Wall Street analysts and accountants.
There were also semi custom, usually home build home hobbyist computers using intel’s 8086 CPU chip at its core, and using the CPM operating system. When equipped with hard drives these computers were pretty expensive and cost upwards of $7000. Gates first wrote a PC version of Basic to run on the Altair hobbyist computer based on an Intel chip, and then ported that to more expensive CPM computers.
IBM decided it could make a much cheaper CPM type personal computer based on the Intel CPU chip that was also full assembled by the company, and mass market it. It would do useful thing such as run the visicalc spreadsheet and a word processing program, and Microsoft basic. CPM wanted lots of royalty money from IBM to use their operating system. IBM had already contacted Gates for his Basic programming language, and Bill figured he could sell them on himself and his partner Paul Allen writing an operating system for the IBM PC that was based on CPM which they were thoroughly familiar with due to designing Microsoft Basic to run under it, but enough different to escape the CPM copyright. I think CPM sued Microsoft for copyright infringement but lost. The IBM PC launched in 1980 I think.
@Bob
I think this is it. The signs are already there that knowledge of game is becoming common amongst younger men. My wife and I watched the remake of Fright Night recently and they even referenced it there. Men don’t even need to learn enough game to be good at it for it to knock women off the pedestal and demolish the “women are just men who sit to pee” assertion which so much of modern feminism is founded on. All they have to do is see it working for the men who do know how to use it. This will be especially true for high school and college aged men who won’t have as much to unlearn and who will have plenty of specific examples of peers using game with great success. Those who can’t make it work for themselves will of course be frustrated, but women will be knocked off the pedestal nonetheless and the truth that women and men aren’t the same will be too obvious to deny. Most men I suspect will fall somewhere in between. They will find that game makes them more successful with women but they won’t have the kinds of experiences the game bloggers write about.
The fierce defense of the privileged class of all their friends is as obvious as it is annoying.
They took a few months to write(copy) code from a mainframe to a personal computer. The language had already been designed. Routines for interpreting the language had already been designed. They edited code that already existed to make it “PC” friendly. This is the lowest level of programming work… the kind of stuff done by Hindu’s for two dollars an hour today.
They stole Harvard computer time to do this. Other people couldn’t “keep up with them” because other people didn’t have Harvard’s PDP-10… or were limited by things like ethics.
A wise low-born will simply accept the penny from a well-born super-intelligence for if his life work. If he does not, the well-born will simply steal his life work. The well-born will then hire someone like well-born Doug to defend his actions before a well-born judge.
Notice that name. Harvard. That’s were Billy went. Not cause he is well-born… I mean, well yeah, it is because he is well-born. But that doesn’t MEAN anything. Here that low-born? You work hard!
You keep results of your work unless you are STUPID low-born and sell it to well-born for pennies on dollar! If you not stupid, then well-born just steal and then you twice as stupid!
You stupid low-born!
PT Barnum wrote concerning Bill Gates :
The fierce defense of the privileged class of all their friends is as obvious as it is annoying.
It’s not a defense of the privileged class to give credit where credit is due. Bill Gates and Paul Allen were brilliant coders and ahead of their time.
They took a few months to write(copy) code from a mainframe to a personal computer. The language had already been designed. Routines for interpreting the language had already been designed. They edited code that already existed to make it “PC” friendly. This is the lowest level of programming work… the kind of stuff done by Hindu’s for two dollars an hour today.
One of Gates’s accomplishments was to squeeze the BASIC interpreter into 4k of code. This falls a bit outside the scope of some offshore rent-a-coders capabilities. Design requirements back then were often almost completely driven by the limited hardware available back then. Programmers often had to resort to bizarre tricks such as self-modifying code.
Hello, Ray. You looked up why the Atkins diet has to work yet? Why don’t you do that and get back to me. Then you can apologize for believing the “debunking” dancing monkey idiot. But till you can tell me the primary source of calorie loss for the Atkins diet, I don’t really care what semi-logical gibberish you can put together. Understand what you are talking about or STFU.
But maybe Billionaire value investor Warren Buffet breaks my rules?
Guess not.
PT Barnum wrote:
Hello, Ray. You looked up why the Atkins diet has to work yet?
Why, no, PT. I expect those who disagree with me to do their own homework, and show me the facts and evidence that support their position. I’m sure not planning on doing it for you. Sorry, but your status as a lazy internet troll doesn’t exempt you from the normal rules of debate.
Why don’t you do that and get back to me.
Why don’t you answer on the blog where we discussed it instead of doing it here?
Then you can apologize for believing the “debunking” dancing monkey idiot
I’ll be happy to as soon as you can point me to some peer-reviewed studies or analyses that refute the dancing monkey. And rebut my point that a diet is only as good as someone’s ability to follow it – Atkins diet is an epic fail in that regard.
But maybe Billionaire value investor Warren Buffet breaks my rules?
What, that some wealthy people got where they were with the help of their connections? Wonders never cease. So did Gates, but he never would have gotten to where he was now without his abilities as both a coder and a businessman. And there are those, like Steve Jobs, who managed to rise without access to a privileged background. Go figure.
[quotage omitted]
Guess not.
We were discussing Gates, not Buffet, and I was trying to explain to you why his development of the BASIC interpreter wasn’t just some trivial weekend hack that could be done by a rentacoder. Do you have any capacity whatsoever to do a proper rebuttal without going off on tangents or resorting to ad hominems?
Well, it’s fortunate you feel no need to present facts YOURSELF
I love it. “Peer-reviewed”. In other words, accepted by the well-born. Unfortunately for you, dancing monkey, there is a “peer-reviewed” article as to why the Atkin’s diet MUST work.
It’s called a biochemistry textbook. You can buy then at Barnes-and-Noble. Look up “ketosis”.
Now, I ask the dancing monkey, again, after he refused to answer the question cause he has no idea what he is talking about, what is the primary source of calorie loss from the Atkin’s diet?
What is there to rebut? You stated an opinion. You decided, based on little evidence that I can see, that what he did required “leet-skills”. You also refused to explain why his mommy wasn’t responsible for his getting attention from IBM besides the fact that “you say so”. Whether that attention started with the CPM theft or this Basic interpreter or at any other point is irrelevant to the fact that his mommy is why he got attention in the first place. That would be you and Doug “changing the subject”. Which is, without his mommy, Billy never would have become a billionaire.
In Buffet’s case it was his daddy though. POINT OF ORDER! POINT OF ORDER!
I will never understand why men put up with even one other man having been inside their wife.
Demographics. In pre-1960s America, where a vast majority of women were virgins til marriage, insisting on that would have made sense. Today, virgins are so scarce that this is an unrealistic requirement – sort of like an alpha-chasing hypergamist’s 4 page list of “must have” traits that sher requires of a man before she will date him.
Even if you, yourself, are a virgin, the chances of you attracting one are small, just because there are so few. I know more than one couple where the guy was a virgin at marriage and the woman wasn’t. EVEN IN CHURCH, most of the girls have “slipped up” here and there, if they’ve made it much past 21-22 without marrying. The best you can usually hope for, is genuine repentance and a clean disease report.
Also let’s not forget the high rape rate: no less than 9 of the women I dated, had been raped somewhere during their lives. Some of them were virgins waiting til marriage, when they were attacked.
van Rooinek
Fine, but there is always an excuse.
9? Rape sounds like an excuse to me. And you say some were virgins waiting for marriage. That tends to weaken your case that there are no virgins to speak of.
I was a very attractive young man, and I had choices. I would never have married a non-virgin.
PT Barnum wrote:
Well, it’s fortunate you feel no need to present facts YOURSELF
Yes, I used research conducted by others. One of the quoted references was a meta-analysis of about 200 studies by the Journal of the American Dietetic Association. Conclusion: “Weight loss is independent of diet composition.”
Conducting my own clinical trials and epidemiology studies is outside my time and expense budget for responding to Internet gasbags. Sorry.
I love it. “Peer-reviewed”. In other words, accepted by the well-born.
What do you propose to replace it, smart guy? Astrology? The psychic hotline?
Now, I ask the dancing monkey, again, after he refused to answer the question cause he has no idea what he is talking about, what is the primary source of calorie loss from the Atkin’s diet?
Oh, yes, ketosis, that magic word that’s supposed to make me believe you’re educated in biochemistry. It doesn’t address the high dropout and noncompliance rate of Atkins followers. You never do, either. How do you plan on addressing it? Imprisoning and force-feeding dieters has some practical issues.
What is there to rebut? You stated an opinion.
I buttressed my opinion with the statement that Gates managed to fit a language interpreter into 4k. That is not some trivial mainfraime port. Have you ever even tried to code or modify a compiler or interpreter? Or write in assembly language?
You also refused to explain why his mommy wasn’t responsible for his getting attention from IBM besides the fact that “you say so”.
Again, I’ve acknowleged the role that connections and social networks have in success. Dick Gabriel, author of “Patterns of Software”, wrote in his book that success is a combination of who you know and your personal ability (in that order). My point was that Gates would not be the success he is today without his native intelligence, talents, and skills. Bill’s mommy didn’t build his multi-billion dollar industry and dump it on his lap. She didn’t code the BASIC interpreter for him either.
Whether that attention started with the CPM theft or this Basic interpreter
CPM theft? That’s a bit like accusing Linus Torvalds of ripping off Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie when he started the Linux project. It was IBM’s decision to have an open architecture
which allowed DOS to be created in the first place. But ol’ Bill is just a bad guy, and gosh darn it, you don’t want to be confused by the facts.
In Buffet’s case it was his daddy though.
So, does Buffet’s daddy do his investing for him too?
van Rooinek wrote:
Also let’s not forget the high rape rate: no less than 9 of the women I dated, had been raped somewhere during their lives.
What form of rape? Being attacked in a dark alley, by a burglar, or a boy who stayed the night with her in her dorm room? Was it rape-rape, date-rape, or something else?
I too question the 9% rape victimization of women in the general population. I know this would just be anecdotal, but in all my years in LE, the number of legit rape cases I’ve investigated is less than 10. The towns I’ve worked for all have populations over 200,000.
Many of the “victims” were dragged into reporting the “incident” by parents, husbands and boy friends; another large category were girls-with-regrets after a drunken binder.
Personally, I will use people who I have some faith are somewhat trustworthy. Which certainly DOES NOT include your standard American doctor or the American Drug Companies.
I understand the entire process, why the body does it, and the consequence that leads to weight loss. Since you still haven’t answered my question, I imagine you still do not.
But I have to answer every question before Ray answers one! That most be a fun game to play, eh dancing monkey? HOW ABOUT YOU ANSWER MY ONE QUESTION, you fool?
Is it fun to argue with someone of half the ill-will of you have, Ray? Or are you just used to being a little punk while the other person tries to reason with your poo throwing self?
No, you did not acknowledge the role of Bill Gates Mommy, skip. You ADMITTED it when I FORCED YOU TO, and then pretended it doesn’t mean anything. After trying to worm your way out for many replies.
The facts are that there many, many, many people who have far more native intelligence, talents, and skills than Bill Gates who did not succeed because they did not have Bill Gates Mommy.
Always the same lies, because you are speaking from the well-born playbook defending their boy.
Linus didn’t sell Linux for tremendous amounts of money. That would the first difference of many.
PT Barnum wrote:
Is it fun to argue with someone of half the ill-will of you have, Ray?
Ill-will? You’re projecting rather badly here, I think. That’s one thing that’s never ceased to amaze me about trolls. They can be as abusive as hell while whining like babies when someone disagrees with them or calls them on it. You remind me a bit of one manosphere poster who’s been kicked off of several forums. It’s never his fault; it’s always someone else.
With the way you mouth off, I figure you should be able to handle a whole platoon without breaking a sweat. So it’s not real clear to me why you’re doing your Mr. Bill “He’s being mean to me!” impression. Surely you should be made of stronger stuff than that with the way you carry on.
No, you did not acknowledge the role of Bill Gates Mommy, skip. You ADMITTED it when I FORCED YOU TO, and then pretended it doesn’t mean anything.fter trying to worm your way out for many replies.
Many replies? In my second post on this thread I acknowledged the role of social connections in success. While they’re certainly beneficial as a starting point, they just aren’t sufficient to build an empire like Microsoft.
(concerning ketosis)
I understand the entire process, why the body does it, and the consequence that leads to weight loss
Then you should understand why noncompliance with a regimen is a deal-killer. For the same reason, a whole slew of drugs may show promising action in animal studies or in vitro. But if the delivery system is impractical or the side effects are too extreme, they aren’t going to be practical to use.
So if the Atkins diet has such a poor record of compliance, and it has shown no demonstrable superiority to diets with more balanced mixes of proteins, carbs, and fats, (quite the opposite) what are the advantages to following it?
The facts are that there many, many, many people who have far more native intelligence, talents, and skills than Bill Gates
Who combined his constellation of programming skills and business savvy? I’m sure there are some, but am a bit skeptical that they’re all over the place.
who did not succeed because they did not have Bill Gates Mommy.
Translation: Life is often unfair. News at 11.
Always the same lies, because you are speaking from the well-born playbook defending their boy.
I don’t even like Gates – I’m simply pointing out that he’s not a particularly compelling example of someone who made it just due to his social connections. Bush Jr. is a much better example – he’s about half the man his father is. The only thing I’m defending is the existence of a more complex reality than your cartoonish, black-and-white version of how the world works.
Here’s another example – John Sculley, who Steve Jobs made the the mistake of hiring in his original phase at Apple. He’s considered one of the worst CEOs in history. If you had mentioned Sculley or Baby Bush as an example of social connections swamping competence I’d agree with you.
Linus didn’t sell Linux for tremendous amounts of money. That would the first difference of many
The guy’s filthy rich, just in case you aren’t aware. When I google ‘Linus Torvalds’, the phrase ‘net worth’ almost leapt out at me. Hating on Gates simply because he has more money strikes me as simply childish – sort of like your method of argumentation.
..you say some were virgins waiting for marriage. That tends to weaken your case that there are no virgins to speak of.
Actually, far from it. Obviously after they were raped, they weren’t virgins any more. By definition.
And I didn’t say there were “no” virgins. Just that they are so few and far between nowadays, that if you make that a requirement, you severely hamper your chances at marriage.
What form of rape? Being attacked in a dark alley, by a burglar, or a boy who stayed the night with her in her dorm room? Was it rape-rape, date-rape, or something else?
Some of each. One was run down outdoors and tackled while taking an innocent stroll in an orchard. Two more were grabbed and dragged into back rooms by strangers at parties (memo: don’t go to parties with strangers); these 2 were virgins when attacked. Three cases were date rapes, two of which involved willingly ingested drugs/alcohol (the third was sober… and only 17). One was roofied (by her ex-husband). Two were molested as children by family members. And one elected not to describe the circumstances to me. If you did the math, that’s 10 attacks — one girl was BOTH child-molested AND attacked as an adult.
I too question the 9% rape victimization of women in the general population.
I didn’t say 9%, I said 9. Nine actual individuals.
So would you say that in your estimation 9% is too low of a statistic? Do you know more than 100 women’s sexual past to be able to give us a comparison of the population we are seeing this sample from?
ybm,
Over the years I’ve seen the mass media make certain crimes fads, and as a result reporting of those crimes-dejure goes up. In the early 80’s there was the day care workers and child molestation, then the satanic ritual abuse & murders wave, then the animal abuse/ dog fighting when the Vic thing was in the news, alien sightings are always a favorite, after 911 every suitcase tossed in the alley trash became a bomb threat/suspicious package report, and currently the priest pedophile thing, and of course violence against women/rape.
My thing is that all of these crimes, when legit, are of concern, BUT watch the money…which bills are pending in congress, who has a budget is getting boosted etc…nothing in the media is what is seems.
My wife got a book on the president’s wives and Grover Cleveland’s wife was a hot media topic, but alas, she was pretty boring, so the media guys just made up stories to sell papers…and this was in the 1890’s…so nothing is really new in regard to media manipulation of what is news and what are trends.
The blogosphere has done stellar service in taking the wind out of the medias sails and shattering myths, but it is a daunting battle for truth.
So would you say that in your estimation 9% is too low of a statistic? Do you know more than 100 women’s sexual past to be able to give us a comparison of the population we are seeing this sample from?
No, people, and I said nothing of the kind. Please actually read what I wrote I personally dated 9 women that claimed to be rape victims. 9. I made no statistcal claim whatsoever, somebody else apparently misread me as saying 9% and I wanted to correct that.
Again: I didn’t say nine percent, I said, simply, nine. Nine as in the number nine. I dated nine women who were rape victims. Out of a population of 300 million people which is 51% women. You can’t make any statistical study based on that.
Okay, I looked back — I did make mention of a “high rape rate”… But yes there IS a high rape rate (in a righteous world it would be zero) … However I pinned no numbers on it.
Many victimized women (rape, abuse, etc), gravitated to me after being done with badboys. Some of them plainly said so. So even if I had dated 100 women (hah… as if), a statisical study of the women I dated would not be representative due to subject selection bias.
van Rooinek wrote:
Some of each. One was run down outdoors and tackled while taking an innocent stroll in an orchard.
That’s rape. Any police reports?
Two more were grabbed and dragged into back rooms by strangers at parties (memo: don’t go to parties with strangers);
That’s rape. But how exactly did they meet these strangers?
these 2 were virgins when attacked.
They said they were, anyway.
Three cases were date rapes, two of which involved willingly ingested drugs/alcohol (the third was sober… and only 17).
I always take ‘date rape’ with a grain of salt. It gets very hard to determine whether there was actual forced sex, buyer’s remorse, or a gaggle of her girlfriends telling her she was raped.
One was roofied (by her ex-husband).
Did she go to the police or just tell you?
Two were molested as children by family members.
Any independent corroborating evidence for these, such as police reports? Sorry to be so skeptical, but sifting through phenomena such as the satanic abuse hysteria and TV shows such as “To Catch A Predator” really require a critical eye.
And one elected not to describe the circumstances to me.
Which also means you’re in no position to judge whether the attack even took place.
If you did the math, that’s 10 attacks — one girl was BOTH child-molested AND attacked as an adult.
I’ll take this opportunity to repeat my request for corroborating evidence.
@ Ray Manta
Yes, I read that post with a degree of skepticism and indeed, the author admits that he attracts the type of woman who make those allegations, true or not. I took him at face value that from his perspective, he has no reason to doubt the truth of the claims. But he must understand that an outsider like you or I are entirely justified in thinking he either seeks out the type of woman who makes those claims, or they seek him out. Aside from the…shall we say….truthfullness of the claims that these 9 women have made.
One was run down outdoors and tackled while taking an innocent stroll in an orchard.
That’s rape. Any police reports?
One was roofied (by her ex-husband).
Did she go to the police or just tell you?
Two were molested as children by family members.
Any independent corroborating evidence for these, such as police reports?
You’re starting to seriously annoy me. I’m not in the habit of asking dates for police reports regarding crimes that occurred 10 or 15 years earlier. That boes ill for a relationship’s future. Just imagine —
“Sob sob… when i was 16 I was raped in an orange grove. This guy ran after me… ”
“I don’t believe you, show me a police report”.
Roofie chick was drugged overseas, in her home country, where apparently (12 years ago at least), roofies were not yet known. She knew that her ex slipped her some drugs, but she wasn’t aware that she’d been raped til I helped her piece it together. (She was unaware of the drug-rape trend and was sort of mystified as to why he drugged her.) Hell of a first date conversation.
Corroborating evidence? All of these chicks were seriously messed up in the head, so I totally believe them. All that is, except that one of the “party” girls, a Christian virgin, who fought back til she was unconscious and therefore had no memory of the attack — though of course when she woke up it was obvious what had happened. She seemed to have adjusted/recovered fairly well.
Two more were grabbed and dragged into back rooms by strangers at parties…
That’s rape. But how exactly did they meet these strangers?
Duh, at the party. There were people at the parties that the girls did not know. That’s why they’re called strangers.
these 2 were virgins when attacked.
They said they were, anyway.
Again, visualize the conversation…
“I was a Christian… I was saving myself for marriage… sob sob… I knew I shouldn’t have gone to that party…”
“I don’t believe you, show me a police report”.
Three cases were date rapes, two of which involved willingly ingested drugs/alcohol (the third was sober… and only 17.
I always take ‘date rape’ with a grain of salt.
I do too, so I’ve omitted another case where I, myself, would have voted NOT GUILTY if I’d been a juror on the case, because I wouldn’t call it rape. As to the others, I’m omitting some details.
the author admits that he attracts the type of woman who make those allegations
Fair.
he either seeks out the type of woman who makes those claims
No way. Not even close. My wife, BTW, is NOT a victim.
or they seek him out.
Bingo. Typical quote, “I took one look in in your eyes and knew you weren’t that kind of man”. And…”I feel SAFE with you”. Heard that a bunch, too. Oddly enough though, in stark contrast to the “typical” Alpha-chaser who seeks out a dangerous jerk and finds a niceguy a turn off, several of these women who felt so “safe” with me, eventually tried to seduce me. Despite meeting in church, being “good Christians”, etc.
van Rooinek wrote:
You’re starting to seriously annoy me.
Frankly, I don’t care. If you think any of the questions I’m asking are tough, try contacting the police sometime about a crime. My money is that it’s not going to be a warm, fuzzy experience for you. When they investigate a crime, they ask for details like where, when, and how. And no, they don’t give a crap about your feelings.
I’m not in the habit of asking dates for police reports regarding crimes that occurred 10 or 15 years earlier.
How about a simple question, such as “Did you contact the police?” Better “Did they make an arrest?”. Best of all – “Was he prosecuted and sent to prison?” Get the idea?
Duh, at the party. There were people at the parties that the girls did not know.
Well, gee, I go to parties with strangers all the time. So do all my friends and acquaintances. Your advice “Never go to parties with strangers” strikes me as kind of strange in this context. If it means “Never go to parties that have people you don’t know”, it kind of makes ordinary social life difficult. It that’s what you meant, it seems almost as vapid as telling someone not to go cross streets – they might get hit by a car.
Roofie chick was drugged overseas, in her home country, where apparently (12 years ago at least), roofies were not yet known. She knew that her ex slipped her some drugs, but she wasn’t aware that she’d been raped til I helped her piece it together
Now you’re heading straight to la-la-land. She needs you to tell her she was raped and can’t figure it out for herself? Richard Ofshe’s book on false memory syndrome has wall-to-wall case studies about people who remembered events that never took place.
“I was a Christian… I was saving myself for marriage… sob sob… I knew I shouldn’t have gone to that party…”
Whatever. When you have some free time, go to antifeministtech.info and lookup “Sunday Morning Nightclub” about the sexual purity of some nice churchgoing girls.
(concerning skepticism date rape)
I do too, so I’ve omitted another case where I, myself, would have voted NOT GUILTY if I’d been a juror on the case, because I wouldn’t call it rape. As to the others, I’m omitting some details.
Well, goody for you. Your lack of any form of fact-checking on the other cases doesn’t make me optimistic that the “date rape” allegations are any more valid than the other ones.
ybm wrote:
I took him at face value that from his perspective, he has no reason to doubt the truth of the claims.
He seems to be quite a trusting soul – he’s ready, maybe even eager to believe whatever they tell him.
She knew that her ex slipped her some drugs, but she wasn’t aware that she’d been raped til I helped her piece it together
Now you’re heading straight to la-la-land. She needs you to tell her she was raped and can’t figure it out for herself?
Yes, actually. She had no clue why her ex would drug her like that. She was from a very isolated backwater that used to be part of the USSR, and was rather naive. All I had to do was explain the roofie phenomenon, and the coin dropped. Occam’s Razor.
Your lack of any form of fact-checking on the other cases….
Just because I don’t put all the details on the internet, doesn’t mean I don’t know them.
When you have some free time, go to antifeministtech.info and lookup “Sunday Morning Nightclub
Know all about it, observed it in real life. Sad but true. Has no bearing on rape though. Also it doesn’t alter the fact that SOME Christians do stay virgins til marriage. (Or, in the context of this discussion, try to… )
Well, gee, I go to parties with strangers all the time. So do all my friends and acquaintances.
Not all parties, or all strangers, are equally dangerous, of course. But surely when you were a kid your folks warned out about hanging out with… “the wrong crowd”?
van Rooinek says:
Yes, actually. She had no clue why her ex would drug her like that. She was from a very isolated backwater that used to be part of the USSR, and was rather naive.
As his wife she was surely familiar with the aftermath of sexual activity, no matter how naive. I find it hard to believe she didn’t realize what he did to her after her experience. The drug thing is a whole different matter.
Just because I don’t put all the details on the internet, doesn’t mean I don’t know them.
So then, were there any police reports, arrests, or prosecutions? If there were, were the prosecutions successful or not?
As his wife she was surely familiar with the aftermath of sexual activity, no matter how naive. I find it hard to believe she didn’t realize what he did to her after her experience. The drug thing is a whole different matter.
Well… evidently SHE believes it happened. I suppose knowing the roofie trick was the missing piece in trying to figure out what happened that night.
So then, were there any police reports, arrests, or prosecutions? If there were, were the prosecutions successful or not
No reports. No arrests. No jail. Feminists say most rapes aren’t reported, and this is just about the only thing they say, that I actually believe.
One victim (the orchard attack) ran into her attacker many years later at a church event. He apparently became a Christian in the intervening years. When he saw her, he collapsed in tears and blubbered out apologies. She forgave him.
The whole thing about a date rape drug is mostly an urban myth. “Roofies” are just a euro-only form of the same class of drugs as valium or xanax. Nothing magic or more sinister than that. Valium has been around since the 1960s.
Didn’t break up for some reason:
What I understand is that you have no idea what you are talking about. As you continually refuse to answer my question regarding the very basics of the Atkin’s diet… how it causes weight loss. Why should I take anything you say seriously when you don’t know anything about the diet?
Not knowing the very basics of what you are talking about is kind of a deal killer for me taking you seriously.
Oh my god! You are so disinterested so I guess I have to take you seriously! Since you are FAIR AND BALANCED!
Which is in itself and attempt to lie and evade my point. I said BIRTH buddy. I said BY BIRTH. I never said “social connection”. I said of a “good family”. A middle class born person can make friends with a rich person. I am specifically saying THAT DOES NOT MATTER UNLESS YOU HAVE THE BIRTH. Or married into it…. like Sam Walton. Who married the daughter of a wealthy southern plantation owner and banker.
You just keep lying about what I’m saying. I kinda think it’s cause you are a liar.
PT Barnum wrote:
What I understand is that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Well, that’s a convincing argument. I guess everyone here is just supposed to take your word for that. And anyone who dares to disagree with you is a complete idiot, right?
As you continually refuse to answer my question regarding the very basics of the Atkin’s diet… how it causes weight loss.
The same way most other diets do – through consumption of fewer calories than are burned overall on a daily basis. Here are some quotes from atkinsexposed.com.
“Atkins claimed that the key to the so-called “calorie fallacy” was that the missing calories were explained by the excretion of ketones. Dieters in ketosis, he argued, urinate and breathe out so many calories in the form of ketones that “weight will be lost even when the calories taken in far exceed the calories expended.” He claimed dieters could “sneak” calories out of the body unused”.[106]
“These claims sounded so far-fetched that as part of an investigative documentary, the BBC paid obesity researchers to design an experiment to test it. So researchers took two identical twins and put one on the Atkins Diet for a while, the other on a high carbohydrate diet and locked them both in sealed chambers to measure exactly where the calories were going. Did the twin on the Atkins Diet have any sort of metabolic “advantage” by burning fat and protein as his source of fuel? Was he literally flushing more calories down the toilet? Of course not. “We found no difference whatsoever,” the researcher said”.[109]
Hmm, guess that kind of throws a monkey wrench in Atkins claims, doesn’t it? Ketosis doesn’t appear to be this massive calorie burner you claim it is. Any losses due to the Atkins diet are likely due to the boredom factor – if someone is eating half carbohydrates and goes to almost none, he/she is going to have a limited selection of foods. Making up the deficit with extra helpings of steak (no potatoes or fries allowed) is unlikely. The end result is likely to be some temporary weight loss. But that brings us back to the problem of noncompliance and recidivism. I’ve brought up the issue repeatedly but you continue to ignore it, harping instead on how it causes weight loss (when how effective it really is is the prime issue).
Here are a few of the side effects of a very low carbohydrate diet listed in the same article:
(1) Muscle cramps. This was due to electrolyte loss from the diet.
(2) Cognitive and emotional impairment.
(3) Constipation. It’s hard to get enough fiber on a ketosis-inducing diet.
(4) Tiredness, weakness dizziness.
(5) Halitosis (bad breath).
There are others, but I’d like to keep this post below book length. it’s easy to see why the rate of compliance to the Atkins regimen is so poor. Who wants to feel lousy all the time and have bad breath to boot?
(about Bill Gates)
Oh my god! You are so disinterested so I guess I have to take you seriously! Since you are FAIR AND BALANCED!
Yep, I can stand back and evaluate pluses and minuses with a degree of impartiality. You don’t appear to be able to do that. The overuse of the CAPS LOCK key isn’t helping either.
Which is in itself and attempt to lie and evade my point. I said BIRTH buddy. I said BY BIRTH. I never said “social connection”.
Last time I checked, family was a form of social connection. You really can’t find anything wrong with my arguments, so you’re harping on an irrelevant point and accusing me of lying. Who do you think you’re convincing?
First, I’m so glad you finally bothered to actually look up the basic facts. Sorta look up. It only took me vocally mocking you for hours and hours in the harshest manner possible. You have proven to me by this weak and feeble gesture your absolute dedication to the facts!
The BBC said so! Hee-hee. I mean really. The GOVERNMENT OWNED BBC said so. Cause they are even more fair and balanced than FOX! Which is at least, in theory, not owned and operated by the government! Well the BBC is DIRECTLY owned and operated by the government!
That’s why they are the only liars bold and loudmouth enough to get on their hind legs and bellow out such preposterous idiocy!
Did you take basic logic in college? Just because diamonds are a type of carbon doesn’t mean that a tree outside my window is worth millions of dollars.
Because, you see, the TYPE of carbon is rather important. And the TYPE of “social connection” is rather important. When you deliberately try to make things vague….
that’s called a lie.
PT Barnum wrote:
First, I’m so glad you finally bothered to actually look up the basic facts. Sorta look up. It only took me vocally mocking you for hours and hours in the harshest manner possible.
Then it must be kind of a comedown when I found that Atkins’ “basic facts” were utter BS. Now that you’re finished vocally mocking me could you please address the issue of noncompliance to the Atkins diet that I raised about umpteen times?
The BBC said so! Hee-hee. I mean really. The GOVERNMENT OWNED BBC said so. Cause they are even more fair and balanced than FOX! Which is at least, in theory, not owned and operated by the government! Well the BBC is DIRECTLY owned and operated by the government!
Oh, yes, I forgot. You’re a conspiracy theorist. The government lies all the time. Just because you say so.
Here’s a quote from another source – nutra-smart.net.
<emKetosis
Ketosis is a metabolic state that occurs when your body has run out of carbohydrate so instead starts converting fat into ketones to use for energy. Whilst this sounds fine in theory, other than the other problems it will have with your brain function, burning fat will make no difference to your body weight unless it is coming from your body fat. Eating a high fat diet such as the Atkins diet may indeed force your body to use fat for energy, but a lot of it will simply be coming from the fat in your diet – not necessarily the fat in your body stores. (Ketosis has since become a trendy term typycal of low carb fads, as anyone can go to a health food store and purchase ‘keto strips’ which test for ketones in your urine.)
A recent clinical trial published in the May 2006 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition set out to test this theory. [2] Half the subjects in the study were given a diet of which only 5% of its energy came from carbohydrate (and 60% from fat) whilst the other half were given a diet of which 40% of the energy came from carbohydrate (and only 30% as fat). Both diets contained precisely the same number of total Calories, though the very low carb diet caused the subjects to enter a state of ketosis.
After 6 weeks, both groups showed improvement in insulin function though there was no significant difference in the amounts of weight lost between the two groups. The low carb, ‘ketogenic’ dieters reported feeling greater emotional discomfort (less ‘vigour’) however than the non-ketogenic diet group. Moreover, the ketogenic group also exhibited higher levels of inflammation when their blood was tested. The bottom line is that if someone is telling you that you need to be in a state of ketosis in order to successfully lose weight, they are lying.
So that’s where all the theorizing about using the ketosis to burn fat falls through in the Atkins diet. While it may force your body into burning fat, there’s no reason per se why the source has to be your own body – it can just as easily come from the fat in your diet. Please also note that there was no significant difference in weight loss between the 40% carb diet and the 5% carb diet. Amazing how closely the results of the study agree with the government owned BBC. Guess they must all be in cahoots with one another.
Did you take basic logic in college?
Never bothered, but I worked as a software engineer afterwards. It’s a profession that’s a bit hard to make a go of unless you have some decent skills in logical reasoning.
Just because diamonds are a type of carbon doesn’t mean that a tree outside my window is worth millions of dollars.
I wasn’t aware trees were just made of carbon. Last time I checked they were chockful of complex organic compounds.
Because, you see, the TYPE of carbon is rather important.
You mean allotrope of carbon. Diamond is a specific allotrope where atoms are bonded in a tetrahedral lattice arrangement. Graphite and graphene are other arrangments. All of them are made up of carbon atoms, unlike a tree. Which makes your analogy even dumber.
And the TYPE of “social connection” is rather important. When you deliberately try to make things vague….
that’s called a lie.
Unless you’re telepathic, you’re wasting everyone’s time with your bloviating about me “deliberately making things vague”. I would think it would be hard to read minds with your tinfoil hat on.
PT Barnum—
CPM made a stupid business decision in trying to get too high royalties in licensing it’s operating system to IBM. Gates as per usual made a smart decision.
As for “stealing CPM”, the courts ruled he didn’t. We have copyright laws in this country. He made changes, and improvements. Was he inspired by the general architecture of CPM, yes he was.
INCORRECT. Ketones are created because they can go past the blood-brain barrier unlike normal fats and thus supply energy TO THE BRAIN. The rest of the body has no trouble operating on fat. That’s basic biochemistry.
Oddly, the abstract is available online. Thus I was able to immediately confirm the complete idiocy used in this “study”.
http://www.ajcn.org/content/83/5/1055.abstract
1.It was a 20 adult, 6 week study. In short, very, very ,very small, very, very, fast.
2. THE SUBJECTS LOST AN AVERAGE OF 15 POUNDS IN SIX WEEKS!!!!!! THEIR BODIES WERE PUT IN A STATE OF STARVATION!!! THIS TURNS OUT TO BE BAD!!! I AM SURPRISED!!!
Atkin’s Diet EXPLICITLY says that you can and should eat a lot of the appropriate foods. Comparing this with crash dieting while inducing ketosis…. oh yeah, you got me, you idiot tard.
I have no doubt that Atkin’s diet combined with crash starvation diet is bad. Of course, Atkin’s explicitly says that you shouldn’t starve yourself on his diet, by why would we actually want to follow the explicit instructions of the diet when we are lying wildly in order to produce something we can wave in naive peoples faces to back up our wild lies?
And yet I don’t trust the lying doctor animals. Why oh why.
Since Gates spent almost no money in stealing CPM architecture, I imagine well-born Gates could sell it to well-born IBM management at quite the profit. I never would have guessed outright theft was profitable!
I’m quite sure well-born judges ruled in favor of well-born Gates. That’s why we have laws in this country that are never enforced unless they are to the benefit of the well-born. Like if Gates saw in a dream that maybe that person kinda used Microsoft code in their product. Definite copyright violation.
Since I was saying well-born about twice every sentence, I have a little trouble taking your claim of “just not understanding” what I was saying seriously. I’m so sorry that I have had the bad taste to mention that you are lying constantly. Having a “proper family” is way different from “social connections”
PT Barnum wrote:
In response to :
“Ketosis is a metabolic state that occurs when your body has run out of carbohydrate so instead starts converting fat into ketones to use for energy”.
INCORRECT. Ketones are created because they can go past the blood-brain barrier unlike normal fats and thus supply energy TO THE BRAIN.
The heart also uses ketones in the absence of available carbohydrates. Fine, it would have been better worded as follows:
“Ketosis is a metabolic state that occurs when your body has run out of carbohydrate so instead starts converting fat into ketones to use for energy for use by the heart and brain”.
They definitely seem to be Plan B in terms of supplying the brain with energy. The complaints of lack of energy and impaired cognitive functioning by followers of the Atkins regimen support this inference. It’s also pretty peripheral to the issue of how effective the diet is.
1.It was a 20 adult, 6 week study. In short, very, very ,very small, very, very, fast
Longer term studies of the effectiveness of the Atkins diet show far worse results. The Tufts study I mentioned several times showed it to be the least effective of 4 popular diets in terms of keeping the weight off. Not surprising since the side effects are so unpleasant.
THE SUBJECTS LOST AN AVERAGE OF 15 POUNDS IN SIX WEEKS!!!!!! THEIR BODIES WERE PUT IN A STATE OF STARVATION!!! THIS TURNS OUT TO BE BAD!!! I AM SURPRISED!
I don’t doubt it. You just put two entire sentence in all caps and punctuated them with multiple exclamation points. If you do the math, the subjects lost an average of a bit more than 2 lbs. a week. While that’s a bit high in my book, it’s not that extreme.It’s about the same as the maximum weekly weight loss recommended by the CDC and the Mayo Clinic.
Atkin’s Diet EXPLICITLY says that you can and should eat a lot of the appropriate foods.
It kind of makes life difficult though when carbs are out of the picture. Beef without potatoes or gravy, hamburgers without buns, lunch meats with no bread or mayonnaise. Butter is ok but don’t even think of putting it on a roll. Kind of dismal. Overall, the weight loss mechanism seems pretty similar to most of the other fad diets I’ve seen – restrict the normal variety of foods, and people are simply likely to eat less.
Atkin’s explicitly says that you shouldn’t starve yourself on his diet,
According to the atkinsexposed.org site, he made the claim that you eat an incredible 5,000 calories a day and still lose weight. Eating 5,000 calories a day of steak, eggs, butter and tuna is just about impossible for me to personally contemplate. I’d also like to quote from the site:
“Since the caloric value of ketones is about 4.5 kcal/gm, it is clear that, in subjects on ketogenic diets, ketone losses in the urine rarely, if ever, exceed 100 kcal/day, a quantity that could not possibly account for the dramatic results claimed for such diets.”
So much for Atkins claim that low-carb dieters are excreting incredible amounts of excess calories.
And yet I don’t trust the lying doctor animals. Why oh why.
Well, one if those lying doctor animals is Atkins himself. So if you think that most or all doctors are like Atkins, I can understand.
(back to Bill Gates)
Since Gates spent almost no money in stealing CPM architecture, I imagine well-born Gates could sell it to well-born IBM management at quite the profit.
The codebase for DOS was devised completely separately from CP/M. Just like the BSD family of Unixes are separate from Linux, although the functionality is similar. There’s no evidence he violated any form of copyright or stole intellectual property. And CP/M dropped the ball in its negotiations with IBM.
Since I was saying well-born about twice every sentence, I have a little trouble taking your claim of “just not understanding” what I was saying seriously.
Historically, the “well born” not only have wealthy, well-connected parents, their relatives are likely to be of similar social standing, and they have friendships and connections with many wealthy non-relatives. If the difference between “getting an advantage due to one’s mother” and “getting an advantage due to a friend in the family who worked with one’s mother” can make or break your argument, please explain to all of us how so.
Mayo Clinic:
They lost 2.5 pounds a week. That would be +25% above the maximum recommended level for the Mayo’ites… who I have no reason to particularly trust. In any case, it is fast. Do we know if there people were even fat at the start? I need to calculate the bull “body mass index”. I bet they weren’t even fat.
In any case, that speed causes the body to think it is “starving” and then it does all sorts of unpleasant things to preserve it’s life. Think about it, if you are losing 2.5 pounds a week and have 60 pounds of reserve fat, how long till your body has to start devouring muscles… and then organs? A mere 24 weeks, less than half a year. And that’s from pretty fat. And I’m sure the loss would have been higher without the bodies emergency measures. So probably like four months till very bad things start happening.
When the body thinks it’s starving, it does weird things to retain calories and protect itself. Things that might cause inflamation or other problems. As I’m sure our tester scum well know. That is why the Atkin’s diet explicitly is against calorie restriction. And why the doctor scum intentionally ignored what the Atkin’s Diet says.
But why should they have actually had to follow the diet in order to prove that it doesn’t work? I think I’m being a bit of a hard-nose here. They should be able to follow whatever program they want, call it the Atkin’s Diet, and then present their results as proof the Atkin’s diet doesn’t work!
PT Barnum wrote:
They lost 2.5 pounds a week. That would be +25% above the maximum recommended level for the Mayo’ites… who I have no reason to particularly trust.
A half pound difference is hardly likely to invalidate the results of the diet.
The Mayo Clinic has a well-deserved reputation for doing excellent, careful research and was ranked at the third best hospital in the US by US News and World Report (source : Wikipedia). They’re also a nonprofit organization without any particular axe to grind.
Do we know if there people were even fat at the start? I need to calculate the bull “body mass index”. I bet they weren’t even fat.
Uh-huh, sure. I don’t see too many well or fit people entering studies such as clinical trials. They require a big commitment of effort and time and the investigators also require that they meet some minimum standards. So unless you can come up with some evidence otherwise, I’m going to stick with the commonsense position that the patients in the study needed to lose some pounds.
.
In any case, that speed causes the body to think it is “starving” and then it does all sorts of unpleasant things to preserve it’s life.
Well, great. I’d agree it would be better to lose weight at a somewhat slower pace. Based on my own experiences, an average of a pound a week seems like a more realistic goal. This is easily obtained by a combination of a modest reduction in calories and daily exercise. I don’t see how it invalidates the results, especially since they’re supported by the cumulative evidence of about two hundred studies.
When the body thinks it’s starving, it does weird things to retain calories and protect itself. Things that might cause inflamation or other problems.
The levels of inflammation were higher in the Atkins group than the other one, even though the weight loss was approximately the same. The atkinsexposed site also discusses the health issues of non-dieters such as the Innuit or soldiers forced to consume a diet with very low carbs, but high in protein and fat. The problems range from bone loss to cognitive deficits.
That is why the Atkin’s diet explicitly is against calorie restriction..And why the doctor scum intentionally ignored what the Atkin’s Diet says
Atkins’ absurd 5,000 calorie claim wasn’t ignored, it was addressed. Their findings were that it’s physically impossible to excrete a significant number of calories via ketosis. Process of elimination than leaves calorie reduction as the prime mechanism of weight loss, although water loss was also mentioned as a factor (which would only be temporary).
But why should they have actually had to follow the diet in order to prove that it doesn’t work?
That’s the way science works – through testing and empirical verification.
I think I’m being a bit of a hard-nose here. They should be able to follow whatever program they want, call it the Atkin’s Diet, and then present their results as proof the Atkin’s diet doesn’t work!
As I mentioned before, not being able to stick to the diet was a major factor in its lack of effectiveness. In the 2003 Tufts study, half the Atkins dieters dropped out of the study, and half of the remaining had stopped with the low carbs. Diets that most people are unable to follow are unlikely to do much good.
A 25% difference is likely to cause changes, especially when it is 25% off the maximum of the range.
Looking through the article, the average body weight was 220 pounds. The participants lost almost 7% of their total body weight in 6 weeks! And you die way before your body weight hits 0% in case anyone is curious.
They were only fed 1500 calories per day. Mayo Clinic suggests a maintenance calorie intake for people weighing 220 pounds of 2100 calories. The body was receiving around 1/3 less calories than it was used to. That made it unhappy.
Emergency calorie retention methods do what they do. Apparently this causes inflamation.
As Eddie Murphy put it: “Be a ‘ho!”
PT Barnum wrote:
Emergency calorie retention methods do what they do. Apparently this causes inflamation.
Why, then, was the Atkins diet associated with greater levels of inflammation than the other diet? Both groups had equivalent calorie levels and both lost about the same amount of weight.
The inflammation is a product of both ketosis AND emergency calorie retention. My guess is that urination and blood ketosis levels were kept to an absolute minimum. This would obviously fog the brain(as they mention) and probably also cause inflammation. Not that it matters what emergency measure happened or why it caused what it did. They knew full well what they were doing and are lying scum.
Again, I’m sure ketosis alone does some things that are bad….. but it does allow weight loss if you actually follow it and SAD diet isn’t swell either. For one thing, it will “cure by annihilation” diabetic problems.
PT Barnum wrote:
This would obviously fog the brain(as they mention) and probably also cause inflammation.
The brain-fogging effect has also been reported in non-dieters who adhered to a very low-carb regimen.
Not that it matters what emergency measure happened or why it caused what it did.
Kind of ironic for you say that after your obsession with the biochemistry of ketosis. My position on dieting has always centered around long-term effectiveness.
They knew full well what they were doing and are lying scum.
Oh, so a bunch of researchers are all collaborating to make the Atkins diet look bad? When confronted with an absence of evidence, there’s always the conspiracy theory rabbit to pull out of your hat.
Again, I’m sure ketosis alone does some things that are bad….. but it does allow weight loss if you actually follow and SAD diet isn’t swell eithert
All the evidence shows that dieting without very low carbs allows equivalent or better weight loss in the short and long term, without the nasty side effects. So for the average individual, what’s the point?
For one thing, it will “cure by annihilation” diabetic problems.
Diabetics may benefit from lower carbs, but I am unconvinced that going to the extremes that the Atkins diet does is necessary or beneficial. Locales where high-carb diets are the norm but have low obesity rates also show very low rates of diabetes.
In reference to Bill Gates, the claim has been made:
‘There’s no evidence he violated any form of copyright or stole intellectual property.’
I disagree with that claim, but I doubt that dalrock’s blog is the proper place to argue about the legalities of intellectual property.
I used to spend a lot of time arguing about the various misdeeds of corporate kleptocrats, but right now I don’t have time to do the topic justice. Such a discussion might be productive in a context that allows classical debate in the style of Toulmin.
This blog, on the other hand, might be more appropriate for commentary on changing social mores of sex.
P. T. Barnum wrote:
‘Is it fun to argue with someone of half the ill-will of you have, Ray? Or are you just used to being a little punk while the other person tries to reason with your poo throwing self?’
I sympathize with Barnum’s frustration. Managing a productive debate in the comment section of a blog is difficult. I encourage Barnum to start his own blog: I would read Barnum’s blog because he seems to be aiming at rigorous reasoning.
I exhort Barnum to read Toulmin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Toulmin
A websearch with your favorite search engine will reveal many links concerning Toulmin’s standards of argument.
zhai2nan2 wrote:
I would read Barnum’s blog because he seems to be aiming at rigorous reasoning.
I think you have a great sense of humor.
I can certainly see the effects on my women friends that I’ve known growing up. Now at 40 it is remarkble to me how bad the most heinous sluts I knew in highschool look like. Some of them were girlfriends past. Almost all of them are single, femisluts and still have horrible attitudes, and they can’t believe they are approaching 40 and never married. You can see it in their skin complexion most of all, and their tired, wrinkled appearance with those cold reptilian eyes how many cocks they had. Just a worn out look, much like feminist Maureen Dowd whose boyfriend left her for a much fresher Catherine Zeta Jones, who doesn’t have the look of having had too many penises inside her.
Pingback: Rules of the road for fornication. | Dalrock
Pingback: Slut! | Dalrock
Pingback: What HUSies want. | Dalrock
Pingback: The boyfriend invention | Dalrock
I think all the points you made are true, and actually made it harder for me in my previous relationship. I was told by a lot of women that waiting for marriage wasn’t realistic, and so I believed it, but I only ever wanted to have sex with one person. I waited for six months with my boyfriend at the time, then after that, we started having sex, and I had been a virgin. We were together four and a half years, and two years in to that, he proposed.
When he went to grad school, he made a lot of new friends, some of them being women who assumed they were smarter and ‘thinkers’ because of their science majors. (Not saying they were all like this, but the ones he hung out with were.) They started telling him that I was too attached, and I was trying to control him by expecting him to marry me. (He proposed to me without me asking, but two years later when I told him it was time to start planning the wedding, he said he felt rushed.) These women kept telling him that it would be better if we first lived together without marrying to see if ‘we were actually compatible’ (after dating for over four years) and they told him that it might be better to ‘explore other options’, and then, when I found out that he had been cheating on me, they all assumed it was my fault because I ‘didn’t give him a chance to really find out what he wanted in a woman.’
So I gave my virginity to him, expected to marry him, and then a bunch of women who didn’t respect their own bodies, or MY body, or their relationships, or MY relationship, told my boyfriend that him sleeping with other people was okay, and that he needed to ‘test me out’ first.
I think dating several people is good. Dating, not sex. Dating is healthy. But I wasn’t even religious, I was simply staying a virgin because I know that women have chemical reactions during sex that make them attached to the man, and also that sex is intimate and I didn’t want a ton of memories of intimacy tied to a person who had hurt me or let me down. But in the end, that’s what happened.
Also, I treat men the same way. I fully expect the man I date to be decently ‘pure’. I’m a little older now, and not religious, so of course I don’t expect to find a virgin, but I do expect my dates to treat sex as a very real, complicated bonding experience which was only acted out previously with people they thought were going to actually stay with them.
I do realize that if my ex fell to the lazy ideas of these women around him, then he wasn’t worth it. But it just sickens me that other women worked to talk a man into leaving a woman that had given him everything.
So, I would like to know about where the cut off for a slut is. To be honest, as a girl, I don’t think there is anything morally wrong with being a slut. But, if having a low count greatly boosts MMV, then it makes sense to do that. My mother deterred me from casual sex, because in her medical career she’s found that most girls get quite hurt emotionally by bonding to guys who just want to fuck. However, her advice still leaves room for perhaps up to 10 guys, if one is particularly bad at figuring out who to pursue seriously. From what’s being said here though, that doesn’t sound like an optimal solution.
Also, what actions increase a girl’s number or would make you wonder? Is any sexual activity cause for objection? Assuming that any sexual action is in an LTR, where the guy is considered as a potential life partner, how would you perceive 1) a sexually stimulating encounter where any contact is through clothing, 2) handjobs, 3) blowjobs, 4)cunnilingus, 5) intercourse? I have a vague suspicion that I don’t need to ask how anal is perceived…
Anyway, how would I prevent a guy from worrying that I had a low sex drive, or was prudish, or frigid? I mean, I’m not any of these things (forgive me for being crass, but I can hold out by pleasing myself, so I suspect that those worries would be unfounded). Both holding out sexually and only being involved with guys I view as potential husbands and who are committed are viable options for me in terms of what I’m comfortable with. My dating market is pretty much genius STEM nerds (both because I have a huge soft spot for them and because I find them easy to communicate with, being a STEM girl myself), and I don’t know if that has a large impact.
Pingback: Yet another whore is auctioning off her virginity… « Patriactionary
Hi Dalrock,
I cannot state how much this post resonated with me. I think there are a number of things here that people from my dad’s generation could not have expected. Of course, my parents gave me the talk about waiting for marriage, but human nature is difficult to overcome, so my mom being the pragmatist essentially said that losing your virginity should be with the person who you intend to marry and be 100% committed to reaching the altar.
What I have seen though, is one-sided commitment which you have explained. A clean-cut nice guy who has avoided sexual contact for 20-25 years or more is easily caught up in the fantasy of the mystical College Boyfriend their girlfriends weave. I was one of them. It is easy to misunderstand the love, devotion, and fantasy going inside her head about the magical moment of virginity loss for True Love, love for the person who’s exchanging V-cards, instead of what you describe; the fairy tale that is becoming a woman. I, like so many of my greater beta friends (smart, athletic, nice yet ambitious), were easily discarded 4-6 months after, being left broken hearted with the guilt and shame of sin.
Oftentimes hearing about or watching these girls hook up with reckless abandon further demoralizes me about any future I can have with a woman. I heard about my parent’s generation that not everyone was a virgin at the altar, but they were each other’s first nonetheless, and I thought it played it out the same way. I never would have imagined that a pseudo good-girl in order to alleviate her future guilt and shame, would con a good man and steal his V-card.
Pingback: - Sunday Supplications: Widening the Christian good girl path, one slut sob story at a time. | The Woman and the Dragon
Sweet As says:
January 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
“And to be sure, it’s a very risky game. My son is involved now. I am his model for how women behave, should be treated, etc. And his expectation (unconscious, he’s only 3 — but I suspect it is the general understanding based on the research i am reading about the way boys grow up and perceive their mothers) is that I will be faithful to my husband (his father), and should his father pass away (which is the only foreseeable reason for me to leave him since I cannot imagine him succumbing to addiction or becoming abusive), then my next steps into relationship would have to be of the upmost morality to help maintain his sanctity.”
SA, never forget the irreducible (short of adopting out/waiting til 18 and gone) issue with an unmarried (by whatever path) parent has when considering dating. That is, that parent will put any suitor at #2 at best in their life priority, but would go absolutely ballistic at the idea that to keep the relationship equitable, the suitor would in turn put the parent only at #2 in priority in THEIR life.
How could that difference of expectations be resolved while the child is still a minor and residing with the parent?
dulin says:
August 21, 2012 at 11:52 pm
“Anyway, how would I prevent a guy from worrying that I had a low sex drive, or was prudish, or frigid?”
By repeatedly TELLING a man (about whom you’re serious) that you would NOT deny a husband any kind of remotely reasonable frequency of sex, nor get annoyingly restrictive about how the sex would go. (That’s not just no/rare/abbreviated fellatio, but requiring condoms for intercourse with your husband, requiring a 4-hour elaborate “courting” before he has any chance of intercourse even on weeknights after he’s worked all day, etc., etc.)
DEMONSTRATING this to him, in a manner you find appropriate for a steady BF/fiance, would help a LOT as well. Whether that’s just making out anytime he wants it that you’re not out in public, for as long as he wants it, to “just short”, is your decision, but your words MUST be consistent with your actions. Men considering a woman as a possible wife can be extremely alert to signs that she is dishonorable, which for the better ones is even worse than being frigid.
luke
As long as the law is what it is you have just advised the woman on how to lie and cheat another beta chump. The truth is this generation of women don’t get agood man. They are the payers of their mothers and grandmothers empowerment. There is no wife and marriage, not any more, by law.
Greyghost, then the man would be justified in leaving her (if she essentially cuts him off sexually). WRT the divorce courts, he should go nuclear, disappearing post-maritally, giving her nothing.
Pingback: She can play that game, but will she win or lose? | Sunshine Mary
Pingback: Is it ever advisable to marry a woman who has had previous sex partners? | Sunshine Mary
Pingback: One at a time, please. | Dalrock
Pingback: Roundup | Eternity Matters
50% of men have never married.
65% of men aren’t married when counting divorced men.
No way to tell what’s wrong with the other 35%.
Pingback: Her first time was special. | Dalrock
This is where “date rape” hysteria originates.
I suspect this more than maliable across generations. I think it varies according to an individual woman’s stage in life. It may start with college boyfriend but the circle of acceptable acts widens with her own experience.
Pingback: Hamster’s Hierarchy of Sluts | Σ Frame
Pingback: Starting World War G: the gender wars
Pingback: The Parable of the Pressure Cooker | Σ Frame
Pingback: Why does Game work? | Σ Frame